The sitting begun and suspended on Monday 2October 2000 was resumed at 10.30 am (MrDeputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair).

Local Community Nursing

Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure that appropriate funding for local community nursing is available for those patients in acute hospitals for whom nursing care is appropriate, so that bed blocking is removed and consultants can treat additional patients currently on waiting lists. — [Rev Robert Coulter]

Mr Jim Shannon: I want to pick up on some of the points raised yesterday. First, however, I must mention a case that came to my attention this morning. It highlights the problems that exist with regard to funding for community nursing and is an example of the domino or knock-on effect. A lady from Donaghadee who had telephoned for an ambulance waited for four hours for it to come. She then had to wait in the hospital for eight hours before she was seen. She had to wait 12 hours in total. This illustrates the problems in the Health Service. It is no reflection on the staff as they do an excellent job; it does reflect very badly on the funding and finances available.
Rather than witnessing an increase in the quality of service to the local population over the past few years we have seen the National Health Service and the health care provision undermined and reduced. Many facilities, including the accident and emergency services have been withdrawn from hospitals such as Ards, Bangor and South Tyrone. There are similar plans for the City Hospital, while services at the Downe Hospital look set not to go ahead at all. No provision has been made at the Ulster, or any other hospital, which will compensate for such loss.
Consider the knock-on effect to local community nursing as a result of that. Much is made by the Government of the £15·1 million allocated for new sites such as Downpatrick, yet this large sum of money is only a fraction of what is required to provide a full range of services. To put this apparently generous offer in perspective, it would cost more than half this figure again to bring the Ulster Hospital up to a satisfactory standard.
We in Strangford and North Down do not have a monopoly on poor health care provision. The picture is the same all over Northern Ireland. I agree with the assessment that the Government never had a long- or short-term strategy for the future of health care services in Northern Ireland. The Government are and have been involved in a campaign of cutting funding and services to all areas of this country without any thought for the negative effects upon the standard of living for local communities. The Government’s plan over a number of years has been to decimate the Health Service and let the Assembly pick up the pieces and take the blame for the state of affairs.
We are aware of the delays for occupational therapist visits and those people who are waiting for work to be done on their homes. Rev William McCrea said yesterday that some of these people will unfortunately be dead before that happens. That is the reality. Is there a policy of waiting for a wee while to see what happens? Those people meantime are suffering in the short term. It is disgraceful that there are such delays in occupational therapy and even worse delays in getting the work done. The crisis currently emerging from the Ulster Hospital, for example, had been predicted by many over the past few months, only for those warnings to fall on deaf or unwilling ears. It was not a case of if, but when, this crisis would be manifested.
I take this opportunity to congratulate every member of staff for the good work that they have done. They have shown 100% commitment to fulfilling their duties. Many were called away from their families over the holiday period without any cajoling or encouragement. They are committed to their work — to them it is a vocation rather than just a job. These people endeavour day and daily to maintain the Health Service. At the same time they have witnessed a profound lack of movement from Wesminster to address the situation.
The Health Service was set up and exists to provide each and every member of society with a proper and adeqate level of health care. For years we have witnessed a rundown of services not only in Northern Ireland but also across the whole of the UK, and especially in our area. Warnings and demands about the Ulster Hospital in particular have been overtly ignored. As a result the problems of last Christmas, which cost lives, were inevitable — just as inevitable as the problems which will be witnessed in the coming months. This morning’s news was such an example. People are now dying because of the inadequacies of the Government. The situation has been allowed to drag on for far too long, with the result that the local Health Service has been stretched well beyond breaking point.
There have also been delays in relation to community nursing. A number of people have come to me over past months and they have all put forward the same case, they are all experiencing the same difficulties. They are trying to get people out of the hospitals and into community care, but cannot because the funding is not there. It is frustrating for us, as elected representatives, but it is more so for the families who want to move their family members to somewhere where they can be closer to them and look after them better. That opportunity is not there as long as the finance is not available. The community nursing system has fallen down and does not deliver what our constituents want. It does not deliver either the care or the commitment that the families want.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: Is the Member aware that in some of the community health trusts there is a cap of £200 on the care package? When that figure is exceeded, the patient must go into residential care, putting the personal assets of the family at risk. Does he find that iniquitous?

Mr Jim Shannon: We are all aware of cases such as that mentioned by the Member. It has become increasingly frustrating. We have to tell people that the money is not there and that it has been capped. That does not deliver the care that we wish to see. There have been delays of 16 to 20 weeks in getting people out of hospital and into care in homes. It is all down to finance, and I think that that is absolutely disgraceful. We must give credit to the staff. They work hard and are committed to the job, but Government policy has led to a decrease in technical and personal support, fewer beds and no movement towards improving the general provision of health care. The Government offers only excuses to explain the present debacle. Patients are still treated on trolleys; non-urgent operations are postponed; and the seriously ill are sent home when they should have been admitted for tests and observation. The Department of Health at Whitehall used the flu epidemic last year to cover up the serious cracks and flaws within the Health Service. Such a crisis was always on the cards; it was just a matter of time before it hit us here in the Province and elsewhere.
People are dying unnecessarily because of the Health Service’s profound inability to respond to the problems. It is mostly down to finance. It is very hard to convey to people the true seriousness of the matter. The Health Service is crumbling around us, and, unless something is done promptly, the NHS will soon be a thing of the past, in ruins. On the news yesterday morning, we heard warnings about how the Health Service is preparing for another difficult winter. Whenever we hear that coming directly from Government, it creates discontent amongst the staff in the Health Service. If the necessary resolute action is not taken now to address the problem, things will continue to worsen. Therefore, it is essential that sufficient funds be sourced in order that local community nursing can meet the demands of those who are ill, both at present and in the future. Any move to free up the ever-decreasing number of available beds in our hospitals must include increased investment in the local community nursing sector. We must do all in our power to maximise what health care provision we have left.

Mr John Kelly: Go raith maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion, even though I find it a bit ambiguous. I wish the Minister well in making her bid to the Executive. It is a pity that such a serious debate on community care has, at times, degenerated into a slagging match and, from some quarters, an attack on the Minister. Perhaps it is timely to remind the House that all parties had the chance to grasp the nettle of Health.
All parties had the chance to grasp the poisoned chalice of health. Sinn Féin was the only party to grasp that nettle and to accept that chalice. Others, in an act of fright or political cowardice, let the chalice pass from them. Because of our different political philosophies on social issues, consensus on the politics of health may not be achievable. However, there ought to be consensus and generous acknowledgement that the terminal state of the Health Service is the result of 30 years of Westminster neglect and indifference. It has been left to Ms de Brún to attempt to redress the imbalance of 30 years, a task which any objective observer would agree cannot be carried out within weeks or months.
There has been much debate over whether Northern Ireland’s four boards and 19 trusts are a waste or misuse of scarce financial resources. The recent rise in golden handshakes to trust executives reinforces the view that the boards and trusts need a root-and-branch review that is both radical and just.
Community care is an attempt to deliver care in the community, a service which has been neglected to the point where it is almost non-existent because of a lack of funding and, perhaps, misguided policies. Society also has an obligation in this regard. People who feel that they cannot mind their elderly parents at home, because of social constraints or for other reasons, find ways of putting them into institutions. There is a social dimension to community care.
Insufficient effort and resources are being channelled into community care at the cutting edge, where it is possible to make both a meaningful difference and an attempt to alleviate the crush on hospitals. A Leas Cheann Comhairle, this area is separate to the broader issue of the abysmal state of wider aspects of the Health Service hospitals, operations, geriatrics, orthopaedics and coronary care. Community care involves more than just the nursing profession the district nurse, or the nurse in the clinic. It is carried out by carers who are not fully qualified but who take on many of the responsibilities of nurses by attempting to deal with situations that require medical attention. They are underfunded. Adequate compensation is not given to carers who stay at home to look after an elderly parent, aunt or uncle, and mostly in rural areas. In many ways, the health system is using their generosity to avoid situations it might otherwise have to attend to.
One of the ambiguities of the motion is that it does not seem to focus on care in the community as a major problem in our society. Community care aims to provide comprehensive health and social care and to retain individuals in their homes as non-hospital residents for as long as possible. It also aims to provide an integral package of care, allowing people to achieve maximum independence. Such an approach requires adequate resourcing. The system for managing care has been fully implemented since the mid-nineties, but this occurred in a climate of efficiency savings and cutbacks. Evidence indicates that the cutbacks have had an adverse effect on the provision of health and home-nursing care to such an extent that it is often difficult for individuals, family and informal carers to cope at home. Particular hardships are evident for elderly or disabled persons living alone. Without the support of families and informal carers, the system would collapse. Families are being expected to do work that should be being done by the Health Services, and they are doing that work as a matter of conscience.
There is a lack of resources for community care and acute hospital beds, and waiting lists and occupancy are encroaching more on home beds. We agree that all of those things have to be addressed and redressed. We ask — and we support others in asking — for some means to be devised to examine closely what is happening in the community care area of health today. If funding is a necessary part of the solution, we should work as assiduously as we can to ensure that it is provided.

Mr George Savage: I commend my Colleagues the Rev Robert Coulter and Mr McFarland for tabling this important motion. I am grateful to them for having had the foresight to enable us to deal with the issue as we head towards autumn rather than in the middle of winter when our hospitals will again be crisis point. I hope the Minister shows equal preparation. The downside of this situation is that we have just come out of what is regarded as the quietest period for hospital admissions, and yet we are already heading towards another crisis.
I am aware that so-called bed blocking — and the Department may have its own interpretation of this — is contributing to rising waiting lists and increasing waiting times. That that is a contributing factor at all, in this day and age, is disgraceful when we consider the massive advances that we have made in medical science in this modern era. If those advances cannot be delivered to patients, in part because we cannot recycle beds properly, we must despair of the way in which we order our society.
Three groups of people are affected significantly by the situation: those in hospital beds for whom funding for adequate community nursing is not available; those on waiting lists who do not get beds in the first place; and the medical profession. It must be so demoralising for any doctor, nurse, or consultant to have to put up with this situation. Bed-blocking and other factors contribute to growing waiting lists throughout Northern Ireland and these problems must be resolved on that scale.
I support those who have called for a proper review group to be established and to include Members of this House. As a Member representing Upper Bann I have more confidence in such a group’s ability to address the problems facing Craigavon Area Hospital than in any of the arrangements made by the Minister thus far. I ask the Minister to consider the situation in Craigavon. If budgetary stipulations made by her Department are to be satisfied, it has been estimated that two 36-bed wards at Craigavon Hospital would have to close. This would mean a reduction of around 3,500 in the number of patients being treated, and I ask the House to bear in mind that there are already 5,000 people on the waiting list of the Craigavon Area Hospital Group Trust.
We have already reached the point where little elective surgery is being done, and my fear is of the knock-on effect that that is having. I am particularly concerned that pressures will increase on the accident and emergency wards as patients find they are having to go through that channel to get treatment. In such a situation, GPs are placed in an impossible situation. They know only too well the pressures that their colleagues are under, yet they have a moral responsibility to ensure that their patients receive treatment.
I do not believe in scaremongering. Those of us in public office have a duty not to frighten people. We have a responsibility to deal with this issue both urgently and rationally. Telling people that they are not going to get better is not the way for responsible public representatives to conduct themselves, but making constructive suggestions is. Having said that, the Minister must recognise that we are facing a serious crisis of confidence in health provision, and bed blocking, as it is termed, is contributing to that crisis.
Six months ago the Minister’s Department published a report called ‘Facing the Future’, which addressed the issues raised during last winter’s hospital crisis. That report acknowledged that in the winter of 1999-2000 health and social services in Northern Ireland faced the most severe challenge experienced in recent decades. It proposed a number of means to ensure that those problems will not be experienced again. The Minister has a duty to come to this House and tell Members how many of the report’s target dates for action have been met. We need to be assured that the issue of bed blocking is being dealt with within the context of those areas identified as requiring action.
In terms of the motion before us, we particularly need to know the extent to which this bed blocking is being addressed in the development of both the waiting list action plan and the joint review of existing winter pressure plans.
In conclusion, it seems that the problem is best summed up by the spirit of today’s motion: everyone who needs medical treatment should get it, and get it promptly. This will mean freeing up beds, and, in order to achieve that, we must ensure that there is appropriate funding for local community nursing. If the Minister really wants to achieve a reduction in waiting lists then she should establish a suitably resourced programme to address the problems, especially while bed blocking continues.
Finally, thanks are due to members of the nursing profession for their dedication to patient care. The professionalism that they have shown over the years is something that can not, and will not, be allowed to go unnoticed.

Mr Sean Neeson: I wish to make a brief contribution in support of the motion. Members have given graphic details of the existing problems in the Health Service, and I am reminded — as you may well be, MrDeputy Speaker — that we dealt with this same issue in the Northern Ireland Forum. That body bestowed no powers at all on its members. All that we could do was air the problems that existed in the Health Service.
I have sat through a fair portion of this debate, and I am concerned at some of the personal attacks made on the Minister. We are only a fledgling Assembly and we are still on a learning curve. I am extremely concerned, since this Assembly, unlike the Northern Ireland Forum, has powers to deal with the issues before us, including the problems in the Health Service. Over the past few months, I have been confronted with some of those problems such as delays in the examination of accident victims’ that never happened 20 years ago. The problems that we face today, not only in the Health Service, but with the railways and a whole raft of issues, stem from the underfunding of those public utilities over the past few years.
It would be wrong to point the finger exclusively at the Northern Ireland Office Ministers; we were dealing with a serious conflict situation, and moneys were diverted. There was underfunding, however, and it is now up to the Assembly to address that. Those who say that they want to bring the Assembly down are doing a great disservice to the people of Northern Ireland. The people want to see their politicians making decisions about their future, including the Health Service. Therefore, I appeal to those who wish to wreck the Assembly: the only people who can deal adequately with our current problems are those who have been elected to the Assembly. Bringing the Assembly down will make the situation much more difficult.

Mr Paul Berry: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is the Member sticking to the motion?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Has the Member finished?

Mr Sean Neeson: The Assembly has a responsibility to address the problems outlined in the motion. The future of the people of Northern Ireland lies in our hands.

Mr Alan McFarland: We have heard examples today and yesterday of the parlous state of the NHS in Northern Ireland. A substantial number of those affected are elderly. It is of note that nearly a third of the population is over 50 years of age — 450,000 people — and the figure is rising. Of those over 65, nearly two thirds have a long-standing sickness.
Care in the community, which was introduced seven years ago, was supposed to deliver a better quality of life, but only 33% of suitable care packages are delivered at home, making institutional care the only option for many. The drama of last winter alerted the Department to the bed blocking crisis, and it does not appear that much has been done since to sort that problem out. The community care sector is in crisis. I use the term "bed blocking" deliberately, for it describes the problem more clearly than the politically correct term "delayed discharge".
Nursing homes have difficulty recruiting qualified nursing staff, and it is disturbing to find that nearly 80% of the social care workforce have no formal qualifications. Community care funding is consistently insufficient to meet demands. In 1999-2000, £25 million was allocated to community care, but only £13·2 million was actually spent on it. As with the children’s sector, the Department diverted the funds to meet other pressures. Given that history, can the Minister assure the House that such funding will in future be ring-fenced?
It is interesting that during the winter crisis a co-ordinated effort managed to move 140 bed-blocking patients from hospital into nursing care over a 30-day period.
The social services inspectorate, as a result of the winter crisis, carried out a review of community care in February this year. Its outline recommendations were that the Department should produce an effective method of funding and strategic planning to deliver community care; an infrastructure which facilitates all-year-round planning and resourcing to deliver the most effective use of resources; and a set of standards regarding assessment, care management, discharge arrangements and recommendations of previous inspection reports to be carried out.
It also recommended greater collaboration across hospital, primary and community care, so as to develop a co-ordinated approach to the planning and management of hospital admissions and discharges to ensure care pathways for patients and clients, with appropriate thresholds and settings to meet the needs of carers; schemes such as ‘Home from Hospital’ and ‘Rapid Response Service’, which prevent unnecessary hospital admissions and facilitate early and appropriate discharges; and an eligibility criteria and charging policy to provide consistent and fair access to care services for all people in Northern Ireland.
Also recommended were outcome measures to demonstrate the impact and effectiveness of schemes to address emergency pressures and their impact on the quality of care for patients and clients; and information systems to enable the Department to more effectively monitor community care and care management arrangements, and to inform resourcing decisions.
It stated that information on waiting times, cost of referrals, assessments and packages of care in the community should be developed as a matter of priority, and called for accountability arrangements sufficient to ensure that all recommendations made as a result of inspections are fully implemented. I wonder how many of its recommendations have been actioned.
Indeed, boards and trusts should have given action plans for this winter to the Minister by 30 September. Mrs Carson informed us that one organisation has not even started yet. Can the Minister assure us whether these have been received? Without a serious co-ordinating effort and additional funding for community care, it is difficult to see how the present crisis in waiting lists, block-beds and nursing care in homes will be solved. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Before calling on Rev Robert Coulter to make the winding-up speech, I, as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue from 1996 to 1998, would like to echo what Mr Neeson said. We have a totally different situation from that which existed then. We have the Minister, with power and responsibility, present — a very different situation.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Oirmhinneach Robert Coulter agus leis an Uasal McFarland agus iad a thréaslú as an tsaincheist thábhachtach seo a thabhairt go hUrlár an Tí. Tá áthas orm go raibh mé in ann freastal ar mhórán den díospóireacht, agus d’éist mé go cúramach leis an iomad pointe luachmhar a thóg Teachtaí.
Dála go leor eile dár seirbhísí poiblí, tá cuid mhór de na fadhbanna atá romhainn sna seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta ag carnadh leo le blianta fada. Agus beidh gá le hobair in éineacht sna blianta seo chugainn le rudaí a chur ina gceart.
I congratulate and thank Rev Robert Coulter and Mr McFarland for bringing this important issue to the Floor of the House. I am glad to have been able to attend much of the debate, and I have listened carefully to the many valuable points raised by Members. I have been moved, as have other Members, in listening to the personal impact on those waiting to go into hospital or waiting in the community for packages — the graphic details of the problems facing the community. I also echo what Members have said in praise of staff throughout the health and personal social services. The staff are working, with tremendous commitment, to deliver services of the highest possible standards with the resources given to them.
I also agree with the points made about the need for resources for both community care and hospital care — in fact, for resourcing the whole integrated system. The debate threw into sharp relief the interdependence of all our services. For our hospitals to work effectively, they are dependent on community-based services delivering the right care. Our task, in modernising health and social services, must be to develop community care and hospital care. We must provide the levels and quality of care in the appropriate settings that our people need.
To improve acute services in our hospitals, we need to develop and expand complementary services in the community — services such as community nursing — which dovetail with the necessary hospital development. We also need to remind ourselves that community care is not important only because of the impact that it has on acute hospital care: we also need to look at the position of those waiting in the community for care packages that will allow them to live their lives in the way that we would all wish.
I was also struck by the cross-party recognition of the need to fund urgent improvements in our health services; I welcome the support that Members have expressed. Health is a key priority for the Assembly, and I share Members’ belief that health and social care are simply too important to our people to be allowed to decline through continuation of the historic underfunding that we have seen. We also need to look for efficiencies, and that is at the core of my consideration of how to meet the ever-growing demands for care and treatment. Much has already been achieved in this area in recent years, but we need to consider how much scope we have for substantial further efficiency gains in this service.
The growth in demand for hospital care is only too apparent. Over the last decade, although the number of beds was reduced by more than a third, 23% more in-patients and 166% more day-patients more have been treated. Similar pressures are apparent in the community, and we need to remember that £190 million in efficiency savings were taken out of our services in the last decade. I certainly have no quarrel with setting the service such targets, or with ensuring that savings are made, and that the services operate efficiently. However, it is a pity that such substantial funds — £190 million in efficiency savings — were taken by the Treasury, instead of being reinvested in the Health Service. In future, I want to see savings ploughed back into the service.
I acknowledge freely that money alone is not the answer but I am convinced that we will require significant additional funding to improve performance. That view was strongly reflected in my statement to the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, which I addressed last week on the question of the budget and of the present bids. I have already made — and will continue to make — a strong case to the Minister of Finance and Personnel and to all my Executive colleagues for the extra funding that is needed. I have taken on board many of the points that have been made by Members.
Many current problems have been building up for years, and it will take a strong, focused effort, over a number of years, to turn things around. Tackling such long-standing and deep-seated problems will require energy, imagination and sustained commitment of resources. I am determined to deal with these challenges; I am determined to seek the extra resources; and I am determined to ensure that, across the entire range of services, we make the necessary improvements, undertake the challenges, and make a focused, sustained and carefully monitored effort to ensure that we have the kind of services that our people deserve.
I would also like to pick up some specific points raised during the debate. I appreciate the calls from all parts of the House to increase funding for community nursing and wider community care; that is a key element in my bid for additional funding for 2001-02.
I am in no doubt that community care must be expanded to cope specifically with the growing numbers of frail elderly people and other vulnerable groups — as some Members have mentioned. This will include providing services to all of these valued members of society who deserve them.
The additional £11million which was provided for community care this year will support an extra 450 community-care packages. These will directly contribute to reducing delayed discharges from acute hospitals. The politically correct term "delayed discharge" reflects a key point which was mentioned yesterday. The blame for a bed’s being blocked should not be placed on the shoulders of the elderly person who is occupying it but on the system which is supposed to ensure that places are made available. The idea of delayed discharge focuses on the system, rather than highlighting bed blocking, which focuses on the individual. However, I agree that the term "bed blocking" is much more graphic.
In the next few months the boards will be targeting delayed discharges to ensure that beds are free for emergency admissions during the winter. I share the Members’ concerns that waiting lists for hospital care are too long. This is a consequence of a growing demand coupled with historic underfunding over a number of years. We need to invest time and money in the long term in order to improve this situation.
The framework for action on waiting lists, which I published last month, provides a comprehensive programme for reducing waiting lists over the next three years, and I assure Members that careful monitoring of the outworking of this framework, and of the actions detailed in it is taking place.
The measures outlined here include the adoption of best clinical and managerial practices, the running of pilot schemes designed to manage admissions more effectively — which was mentioned in the debate — and the purchase of additional procedures.
An extra £5million being made available this year would support initial action — and I stress initial action only — under the framework. Reflecting Members’ recognition of the integration and interdependency of services, this programme takes a systems approach which covers community care and hospital care. It is, of course, crucial that we develop a sustained and focused programme, which will need to be funded recurrently and which will tackle these problems effectively and progressively.
I appreciate the concerns expressed about whether services can cope with winter pressures. Since coming to office I have initiated a thorough review of winter pressure arrangements for this year, and I have taken urgent steps to boost key services such as intensive care provision. Members have referred to the reviews that I initiated after last winter, which began in February. These reviews were given public focus in that the media focused on the situation in the hospitals, but simultaneously I initiated a review of community care because I understand that the integration and the interdependency of services is a key factor.
I have received detailed board plans, which set out the arrangements for this winter. These plans confirm that a great deal of preparatory work has been undertaken across the whole health and personal social services range. As a result, initiatives that worked well last year will be repeated this winter. There will be more intermediate care, step-down beds, increased rapid-response community nursing, more hospital-at-home schemes and more hospital bed managers and discharge co-ordinators. In addition, new initiatives will include the provision of fracture rehabilitation beds, dedicated elderly-care beds, hospital discharge lounges and action to reduce the number of cancelled operations.
To support these initiatives arrangements are in place for the increased provision of ambulance services and GP and pharmacy out-of-hours cover. I can not guarantee that the Health Service and our social services will not be put under severe pressure this winter. What I can guarantee is that the lessons of last winter have been learned. In the interim, people have spent time addressing the questions that Members have so rightly raised during the debate. I am content that every effort has been made, and will continue to be made, to ensure that the service will be much better equipped this year to cope with peaks in demand.
I listened carefully to Members’ outrage over the payments made to former Health Service staff, as detailed in the recent Audit Office report. I share your unhappiness over these substantial payments; they were made at a time when a British Conservative Health Minister occupied the office that I now hold. I will certainly study this report with a view to ensuring that such circumstances do not recur.
The debate has been centred on the pivotal role of community nursing which is a key element of our primary care services. It provides a real alternative to hospital admission for many vulnerable people who would otherwise be admitted inappropriately to acute hospitals. Importantly, as part of our community care services, community nursing also provides part of the bridge back to community life for many older or chronically sick people who have completed their hospital treatment, but who need additional support to regain their independence.
I touched upon the role of community nursing in responding to wintertime health pressures. It is particularly important when it offers a better alternative to hospital admission, such as through the hospital-at-home and rapid-response teams. I note the praise that was given to these schemes by Members who spoke yesterday, and I share their wish to congratulate those who have developed such schemes. It is a development that I support as part of the necessary growth of community care.
There are also important developments in nursing care. I announced last week my approval for new nurse consultant posts. That is an important initiative, which will enable senior expert nurses to remain in clinical care and still advance their careers. I recognise the concerns expressed by some Members regarding the needs of older people and those with mental illness, or learning disabilities. Two of the new posts that I announced will address the needs of the elderly in intermediate care, and smooth the transition between home and hospital. A further two posts will boost mental health and learning disability services. I look forward to these post holders, as expert nurses, making a real difference for patients. I am also pleased to say that we are making good progress in establishing nurse prescribing in all the community trusts. All district nurses and health visitors will be trained for prescribing, we hope, by 2002. I expect a further extension of nurse prescribing to other specialist nurses in the next number of years.
I welcome this important debate and appreciate the attention that the Assembly is giving to such a crucial service. I thank the Members who brought the debate to the Floor of the House. I reiterate that the problems aired today cannot be resolved overnight, but all of them can, and must, be addressed urgently as part of the sustained process of modernising and improving our Health and Social Services. I have initiated a process of change and development, and I am committed to developing a longer-term programme, as well as immediate action. I look forward to your support in driving the necessary changes through. Our aim must be to provide a family of services that takes a holistic and integrated approach and provides efficient, effective, timely and responsive care to all who need it. That is the challenge facing me, my Department and the Assembly. I look forward to working closely with all of you in meeting that challenge.

Rev Robert Coulter: This is perhaps one of the most important of our debates for the people. I realise that, in the space of a six-line motion, or a short opening speech, it is impossible to cover every aspect of the subject. I therefore thank all the speakers who supported the motion for their valuable contributions to the debate. In particular, I thank the Minister for coming here today to reassure us about what is happening in her Department and her plans for the future. I do not expect the Minister to rectify the problems overnight, but I ask that the problem be recognised, and that an immediate start be made to rectifying the defects in the system. I lay no blame at anyone’s feet, and I make a plea that all Members, for the sake of our people, work together to achieve a lean and efficient service.
I am reassured that savings made in the Health Service will be ploughed back into it and not put into a general budget. I am also reassured by the pledge to bid for more funding for community care. However, I am disappointed that the Minister has not addressed my plea for a review group to be set up to look at the problem of bed blocking; a group which would be comprised of Members and which would be accountable to the House.
I use the term bed blocking deliberately so as not to lay blame on elderly people. The core principle required — and I said it in my speech yesterday — is that people should receive the correct treatment, in the correct place, delivered by the correct people at the correct time. That should be the guiding principle of any action that is taken in the future.
I thank everyone who has taken part. We have had 100% support. I am disappointed to see the empty Benches in the House today. For a motion that affects every family in our country, it is a shame that there are so many empty Benches. I plead with the Minister to look again at what I have asked for — that this House be accountable and be the repository of the accountable system for the efficiency of our Health Service.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assemly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure that appropriate funding for local community nursing is available for those patients in acute hospitals for whom nursing care is appropriate, so that bed blocking is removed and consultants can treat additional patients currently on waiting lists.

Pensions

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls for an immediate increase from the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s package of £5 per week in retiremant pensions and for restoration of the index-linking of pensions to earnings.
I am extremely grateful to be able to bring the plight of our senior citizens and pensioners to the Assembly. I am also ashamed that they are forced to live in almost primitive conditions half-surviving on an outdated and totally inadequate pension system.
Senior politicians, particularly those across the water, should hang their heads in shame when they see how many of our senior citizens cannot even afford to keep warm during the winter months. Regrettably, many people end up on a hospital trolley as there are no beds nowadays, not even for our elderly folk — although I am slightly encouraged by the remarks of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety this morning. I hope that what she has said does come to fruition during the winter months.
The appalling treatment of our senior citizens has got to stop now. Elderly people have served their community and country well. Last week, on behalf of a cross-party group of Assembly Members, I was privileged to sponsor a visit by a group of senior citizens representing over 15 different age-sector groups from all over Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to all those groups who are working quietly in our community without publicity. Their only role is to provide that something extra or useful for their elderly fellow citizens. I want to see senior citizens getting support from all elected representatives to provide them with a decent income and a decent environment in which to enjoy their latter years. Remember, fellow citizens and fellow Members, it is them today and us tomorrow.
I am proposing the motion for a number of reasons, not least fair treatment and responsibility. Members need to ensure fair treatment for older citizens. We must fulfil our responsibilities as elected politicians. It is fashionable, particularly in New Labour circles across the water, to talk about responsibilities that people owe to the state. Today I want to talk about the responsibility that we who represent the state owe to the people, particularly the elderly.
The motion urges the Chancellor to raise pensions immediately and to restore the link between pensions and earnings. The basic pension is currently £67·50 for a single person and £107·90 for a couple. Would anyone in this House, or any Member at Westminster, in the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or Dáil Éireann, like to live on £67.50 per week? I think not. Let us treat everyone equally.
This useless low pension, recently raised by the derisory amount of 75p, is the most important single element of income in retirement. Seventy per cent of pensioner households depend on state benefits for 50% of their income, and 13% receive all their income from state benefits. Therefore, pensions are crucial to our older citizens. However, many people, particularly older women, do not have a full contribution record due to having earned less than the lower earnings limit, spent time out of the labour market caring for and raising a family, or paid the reduced National Insurance stamp. Even if someone has a full basic pension, it is not sufficient to live on. Its value in relation to average earnings has fallen since the link with earnings was broken in 1980. Maggie Thatcher was the one who broke the link. She can supplement her pension with book tours, tobacco advertising and suchlike. The majority of our pensioners do not have that luxury.
I agree with Barbara Castle, who only last week said that a wealthy country such as the UK could afford to give dignity to its pensioners. She also said
"breaking the earnings link is tantamount to a fraud since contributions into the national insurance fund are based on earnings, but the value of the pension is linked to prices."
That is what Barbara Castle, a woman of 90-odd years of age and with much experience, has to say on the subject. I agree with her that we should restore the link with earnings. A leading trade union official warned last week that restoration of the link is no longer an economic necessity, it is a political imperative.
Had the policy that linked increases to earnings rather than prices remained, as Barbara Castle argued and we now propose, the basic pension would now be around £30 higher. We acknowledge that the new minimum income guarantee represents progress. Work carried out by Age Concern and other groups recommended a basic level of pension adequate to support people. Based on their research they recommend at least £90 per week for a single person and £135 for a couple.
In the long term the Government must seriously consider raising pensions and ensuring that they remain adequate. That is why the link to earnings must be restored. Until pensions are raised, this low rate — which is lower than the main weekly income support rates of £75 for a single pensioner aged up to 74 and £116·60 for a couple — will keep far too many elderly people in poverty.
Assembly Members should be aware that average weekly earnings in 1999 were £384. Using either the rate of pension or the rate of income support, pensioners receive less than one fifth of the average weekly earnings amount. However, they spend a high proportion of their income on the bare necessities such as housing, rent, fuel and food. For pensioners living alone, more than half their expenditure is on these essential items. The criminally low pension rate insults the elderly and keeps them deprived of comfort and dignity. It also keeps them isolated from society.
Members now have an opportunity to put this right. Fortunately, we are not powerless in the face of this situation. The Assembly has the ability to effect change and improve the lives of this large group of citizens. We have the responsibility to act, and it is our duty to see that we protect and care for vulnerable groups in society, such as the elderly and children. I propose this motion, and I appeal to Members for their support.
The Assembly must send a clear message to the Chancellor that our pensioners deserve more and that the politicians of Northern Ireland are determined to provide for them. Unlike the Labour hierarchy, we do not need pensioners from other nations to lecture us — we know our duties without having to be told them in the august presence of the former President of the Republic of South Africa, NelsonMandela.
I want to assure, and perhaps warn, the Assembly that this is just the beginning, and it is part of a greater action. The motion seeks to influence the Chancellor in the clearest way possible. However, raising the pensions is not enough to ensure equality for the elderly in society. The Assembly has a wonderful opportunity to create the kind of society we desire to live in. I want a society that includes all sections and that promotes the sharing of resources with the vulnerable, thus enabling everyone to enjoy their lives to the fullest. Greater pensions are just a part of this.
I will also be asking the Minister for Regional Development to provide free transport for pensioners. I totally oppose the Minister’s plans to pass the financing of free transport on to ratepayers through local councils. If the Republic of Ireland’s Exchequer can provide free public transport for pensioners, then surely a wealthy country such as the UnitedKingdom can do likewise. Only 14% of pensioner households have a car compared with almost 70% of the population as a whole. Public transport that is easily accessible, clean, safe and timely is essential for the older population. This will ensure that they can move freely around NorthernIreland, and be given equality of access to shopping, leisure facilities and health resources.
My Alliance Party Colleagues and I will raise the issue of the winter fuel allowance with the Minister for Social Development. We want to ensure that the value of the allowance keeps pace with the price of fuel. We all know the astronomical heights that fuel prices have now reached. We welcome the £150 winter fuel payment for this year, and I hope that every pensioner who is entitled to it gets it. I will also work to provide free television licences for older people generally — not just for those over 75.
As a member of Ards Borough Council, I have already proposed the free use of council community centres for older people’s organisations during less-used periods of the day or evening. These are the things that can improve senior citizens’ quality of life.
Now that the Assembly is operational we have the power to effect changes and apply policy. As I have already said, I believe it is our duty to use this power to help the elderly. In the Alliance Party we use words like "integration, respect, pluralism, sharing" — not "separation", and today there is an opportunity, not only for the Alliance Party, but for every party in this House to show what is meant by those words.
Northern Ireland is a society beset by division — or at least it was. Let us hope we have moved on. It is a place where politics is too often about somebody being "anti-" this or "opposing" that. This motion challenges that mindset and that manner of doing business. Instead of saying "No", we can all say "Yes". We can say that we do not want pensioners cut off or isolated. I do not want to express this motion in negatives; I want to be positive. I want to use this Assembly to make the changes we need and deserve. I want to say to the older citizens of Northern Ireland "You are valued and respected; you deserve a decent pension, because you deserve to live in dignity; you deserve to decide how to spend your own money; you deserve to have options; you deserve to make up your own minds." Elderly people are a very important part of society and should not be shunted off to one side as a group who has had its day. They should be regarded as a vibrant segment of the community — people who still have so much to offer every one of us. This was witnessed last week in this very building when, as I have said, we met 15 different groups.
No less of an authority than the Secretary of State for Social Security, Rt Hon Alistair Darling, has admitted that in the UK the latest statistics show that a further 100,000 pensioners are living below the breadline. That is shameful. The total has now risen to the scandalously high figure of 2·3 million. Tessa Harding of the Help the Aged organisation said that it shows that the pensioners’ situation is more desperate than ever.
This Government must heed this as a warning that their policy on pensions is simply not working, and because of that, I want to end this speech with an appeal. It is not an appeal for a change in policy or a motion offering further advice to Ministers in London. I want to issue a personal appeal — a challenge — to everyone in the Chamber today.
Every one of us knows a pensioner, and every one of us owes something to pensioners. The Assembly should be sending out its message of support and encouragement, and we, as individuals, can do this by saying thanks to pensioners by saying "You are important", by saying "You are valued and remembered", but mostly by saying "You are part of us. As individuals and as a society we will not let you down".
This motion was proposed for a variety of reasons, but chiefly because we must ensure fair treatment for the elderly. As elected representatives that is our responsibility.
In the days of Toryism and Thatcherism — thank God, they are a thing of the past, never to return — we referred many times to that Government’s being an uncaring Government, probably because of their uncaring policies towards pensioners, amongst others. Those pensioners have endured such misery over the years that we appeal to this New Labour Government never to abandon or treat senior citizens with such contempt again. Thatcher was dubbed "Thatcher the Snatcher". It was her party which left pensioners in the abominable state they are in. Shame on her!
"Hague the plague", who is now on his knees pleading for the pensioners, would be no better. Members can be assured that Mr Hague is looking for votes — once a Tory, always a Tory. I appeal to those parties with Members in the Executive to do their duty. There is no use in empty promises. Now they have a chance to prove their worth and their commitment.

Mrs Joan Carson: The motion is very topical and important for all those approaching, or over, 65 years of age. It matters to them. Younger people think it does not matter, but it catches up very quickly, and they all have to think about pensions. Whereas I would support any increase, it is difficult to plump for a nice round figure of £5 without considering its relevance to inflation and to the redundant earnings related pensions level. There is some debate as to whether state retirement pensions should reflect and protect against inflation or set out to reward retired people on the basis of the earning levels of the workforce. This is further complicated by the large number of people who have been able to contribute to occupational pension schemes — for example, Civil Service, local government and company schemes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that one in six pensioner couples retire on more than £20,000 per year, but this is mainly due to the contribution being made from their occupational pensions — and that is two people, do not forget. The Public Service Pensioners’ Council is concerned with a widening gap between what pensions are and what they would have been had the wages index not been dropped in 1980. We heard a lot of grief there about MrsThatcher, but as a woman I have to protect her. I agree, with the way things have gone, that dropping of the index link was a mistake. When it was dropped things were level and not too bad, but they have now been overtaken by inflation.
The Public Service Pensioners’ Council has commissioned the trade union research unit at Ruskin College Oxford to undertake a study on the effectiveness of pension provision for former public service employees. This study will assess the extent to which these pensions provide adequate financial means as the recipients get older and draw their pensions for a longer period. With our increased ageing population pensioners will depend more and more on other services — for example, the home care service and care in the community.
Labour has made many statements in an endeavour to retain pensioners’ votes. On 7February, in the House of Commons, MrDarling stated
"Our objective is to make sure that retirement is a time to look forward to".
The Rt Hon GordonBrown said in his Budget speech that a strong caring society takes seriously its obligations to the elderly, but 75p is hardly serious. It would be better perhaps if the £150 tax-free fuel allowance were paid out at £3 per week — it might help a wee bit in that way.
This is a quote from a speech given at the Labour Party Conference on 27September by AlistairDarling:
"No pensioner should have a weekly income that is so low they cannot meet their basic needs and we plan to increase the Minimum Income Guarantee to £90 per week."
That is another promise we should hold the Labour Party to.
I urge the Government to develop a scheme that will help those with modest occupational pensions and savings and not penalise those who have worked hard and saved for their retirement. That is an important issue that has not been touched on yet today.
The Government should listen not only to those with occupational pensions but to the increasing base of pensioner power and treat it with respect. I have great sympathy for the motion, but I remind the proposers that this is a reserved matter, and the Assembly has no power to initiate change. We can, however, send a strong message and make representations to the Chancellor in the hope that he will make changes in his next Budget and thus hold the Labour Party to its promises.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Many Members have put their names forward, and, reluctantly, I am going to have to hold them to their time of six minutes. That will allow the Minister, whom I am glad to see here, a chance to respond and for the winding-up.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I start by applauding Dame Barbara Castle’s superb speech to the Labour Party conference in Brighton last week, where there was a moral victory over the Government in the debate over the proposed 75p increase in the basic state pension. Many people were moved when she accused the Government of
"revealing that instinctively they belong to that group of people who believe only the deserving poor should get their rights."
She went on
"But I think all the poor are deserving. It is not just about money: it is about human dignity."
The Government were embarrassed at the scale of attack by campaigners on this issue, prompting Mr Gordon Brown to make some concessions in his speech to the conference. However, in those concessions there remain many pitfalls and anomalies for pensioners in that package. The minimum income guarantee will rise from £78·45 to £90 to ensure that no pensioner has to live on less than £90 a week. However, the gap between the basic state pension and the minimum income guarantee would be wider than at present. Therefore we could have the situation where a pensioner who saves up to £20,000 — which would generate an income from a private pension of about £20 a week — would gain nothing. The first £20,000 of a private pension saving could be wasted.
For every £1 of pension income, pensioners will lose £1 in minimum income guaranteed benefit, and if you add to this the fact that the minimum income guarantee will always rise faster than the basic state pension, the gap between them will grow year after year. This is a disincentive to save into a private pension. Although there will be a new pension credit — which means that for every £1 of pension income, only 50p will be lost in the minimum income guarantee benefit — this will not come into place until 2003, and pensioners will have no respite from their current financial difficulties until then.
Mr Gordon Lishman, the director general of Age Concern in England, summed up MrBrown’s pledges last week by saying
"The Chancellor has missed the opportunity to put the minds of millions of today’s pensioners at rest on the future of the state pensions."
I am sure that many in this House would agree. The main issue is that the annual increase in pensions is in line with prices and not the annual increase in wages, so many pensioners find themselves caught in a poverty trap, as they find their income continuously eroded, and they experience a reduction in real buying power.
I do not believe that any one in the Chamber today is unaware of how difficult it is for elderly people to manage on a state pension. Even with the winter fuel allowance of £150 and a free TV licence, many people are merely existing on the breadline or using their life savings to attain a basic standard of living. Each year many of our pensioners die of cold-related illnesses, because they cannot heat their homes. That is a proven fact.
Yesterday we supported the First Stage of this Bill. While I commend the proposal in the Child Support, Pensions, and Social Security Bill for an additional pension for carers, long-term disabled and people on low incomes, this legislation makes little or no provision for pensioners, who have worked hard and done without to save for their old age. Those efforts will mean nothing if they are to be disenfranchised and penalised for their prudence. It is essential that there be adequate pension provisions for this section of the community, which has been ignored for a long time.
There are particular benefits for women who have given up the prospect of employment to care for an elderly or disabled relative. It is right that they receive recognition for the invaluable community service that they have provided, caring for the elderly and people with disabilities. For a long time these people, mainly women, were disenfranchised because they did not have the necessary national insurance contributions to claim their pensions, and were forced to rely on social security benefits for their income, which kept them in the poverty trap.
I support the motion because I, like many others in the House, want to see change for the better. However, when voting on this motion, we must also face the reality of our own agenda. This afternoon, we will probably agree the accelerated passage of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill proposed by the Minister for Social Development. In doing this we will effectively be voting to accelerate Gordon Brown’s new package as it stands, which renders this motion irrelevant. As legislators, we have a responsibility to bear that in mind during this debate.

Mr William Hay: I support the motion, at least in principle. This is only a start. I think we would all agree that many senior citizens are living on the breadline. One thing that surprises me is that the proposer of the motion, in many cases, contradicts himself.
For example, as public representatives, we have all, over the years, been trying to do what we can for senior citizens. I remember sitting on the council in our own city of Londonderry when many motions came in about free travel for senior citizens. Over the years, all the parties in the Province did that quite well. It is sad, then, to hear the proposer saying that he expects the Department for Regional Development to foot the whole bill for free travel for senior citizens. He and his council now have an opportunity to look at providing some money. I do not think the Minister is asking for all of it from local authorities. He is saying very clearly that a scheme has been announced. He is looking to local authorities to pay for part of that scheme. That is a unique opportunity for public representatives across the Province to get involved with the Department and ensure that our senior citizens avail of the facility of free travel.
The proposer was quite clear — correct me if I am wrong — that he expected the Regional Development Department and the Minister to find the money. That is what he said. There are councils in Northern Ireland that have taken up, and will be taking up, this scheme. Councils that support the scheme will probably be allowed to go ahead with it. Neighbouring councils will be complaining because senior citizens will not be able to afford the free travel. That is the tragedy.
As public representatives — and especially as councillors — we have an opportunity to avail of that scheme. I encourage those Members who sit on local authorities in Northern Ireland to take up that scheme, and not to expect the Department of Regional Development to pay entirely for it.
There is no doubt that over the years both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have used this issue as a political football. For senior citizens, today is only a start. Some of them live on the breadline. This is the year 2000, but some of them still have to choose between putting on a fire and buying food. That is a tragedy. It is an indictment of both Governments. For 15 years, the Conservative Government did absolutely nothing for senior citizens. Now we have a Labour Government which, for whatever reason, sees it as politically correct to try and give our pensioners a reasonable amount of money to live on. I support the motion in principle, but it is only the start of what we need to achieve for senior citizens.
We should also welcome the decision by the Minister for Social Development to increase the winter fuel allowance by £50 per week. I heard some public representatives complaining about even that. There is no real means test for the winter fuel payment. It is only necessary to establish that a certain number of benefits are being received. Some of those benefits are far-reaching and very wide. Most people — and not only senior citizens — who are seriously on the breadline, or who are socially disadvantaged, will work very closely with the department to make sure that that money is paid out. That is £50 per week on top of what was already there. That has to be welcomed.
We all have a responsibility as public representatives to make sure that senior citizens are well off. I visit many homes in my own constituency, and many senior citizens are not living at all; they are only existing. That is the tragedy of it all in this year 2000. I am surprised by the way the proposer contradicts himself. It is the responsibility of all of us to try, when we get the opportunity, to help our senior citizens. Through local government, we now have that opportunity. In principle, I welcome this motion. At least we can have a full debate on what we need to do for senior citizens.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. We talk about pensions, but it is about those in our society who are in need of help. The very people who have given so much to the fabric of society are, in retirement, treated with contempt. Instead of having the dignified life and comfort that we owe them, elderly citizens are left out in the cold with £67·50 for a single person, and £116 for a married couple. How did this come about? The former British Government linked pensions to earnings, which meant that pensions were related to inflation and not to how much our wages increased each year. We all know how Governments love to keep inflation — that is, the growth of the economy — down. Pensions have to be related to wage increases. In the meantime, the pension should be massively increased to bring it up to an acceptable standard. £5 per week is an insult. Give retired citizens a dignified and comfortable life.
12.00
I would ask the Minister for Regional Development to put free transport for senior citizens into his programme. In the South of Ireland, pensioners benefit from over IR£100 per week as well as having free public transport, free television licences and free telephone rentals.
A pensioner in the Republic can board a bus or train and travel from one part of the island to the other free of charge. However, a pensioner from the Six Counties has to travel to the border at their own expense in order to avail of free travel in the South of Ireland.
Some would say that a proper pension and free transport would not be in line with the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s plans to keep down inflation. We must remember that ten years ago when Germany was unified the East German citizens who had not paid into a pension fund were immediately given full pension rights under the new Government policy. It is time we were brought into line with other nations.
I support the motion.

Mr William Hay: I would correct something. I mentioned £150 per week. This relates to a one-off payment of £150 to pensioners for winter fuel.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I feel a bit like the person who telephoned ‘Talkback’ last week and said that he was fed up with people saying that Ulster was at the crossroads. He said that Ulster is not at the crossroads — Ulster is at the roundabout. I assume he meant that we were going round in circles. In many ways I feel like that in relation to this debate.
For a number of years the Labour Government have had the opportunity to address this issue, and we saw, at their party conference last week in Brighton, what happens when they do not seriously address it. They are now going to have to go back and address the policy seriously.
I was concerned — and when the old Assembly was sitting I made a submission to the Social Security Committee, as it was then called — about the changes that were going to happen to supplementary benefit, which is now known as income support. In those days there was the state earnings related pension scheme, and it was treated like a disease. I always thought SERPS was a funny name because it sounded like HERPS — herpes. They treated it just like a disease and got rid of it without giving any consideration to what might happen. We then saw Thatcher — the pension snatcher — taking away what people rightly deserved. The Labour Government have not done anything different.
Help the Aged tell us that 50% of the telephone calls they receive are about money problems. If this issue is not addressed then Help the Aged and Age Concern will continue to receive telephone calls from the elderly about their quality of life and their inability to pay for the cost of living increases out of their pension which is not index-linked to earnings.
Last week, Chancellor Brown continued to talk about the enormous disparities. He suggested that there were wealthy pensioners. If that was the case then it should be tackled in terms of taxation. He needs to know that one in three pensioners — 70,000 out of a total of 225,000 claiming retirement pension — are on income support. Another 15,000 are not even claiming what they are entitled to and are below the income support threshold. We have 20% on the poverty line and two thirds of those aged over 70 now make up the poorest 40% of our population. Is that the kind of dignity that we want for our senior citizens?
Let me turn to what we can do in Northern Ireland. I feel a sense of frustration about this debate. It would be easy for Members to agree that this is a Westminster responsibility. It is right that the Assembly should send out a message of consensus, showing that this is an issue that we are concerned about in Northern Ireland, but there are issues that we need to lobby loudly on. The cost of living is higher in Northern Ireland, so we do not benefit fully from the standard fuel allowance. I remember the days when we had an extra fuel allowance to take account of the higher fuel price in Northern Ireland. That was done away with under the parity regulations, but our Minister and others should lobby to try and get that back.
In addition, we get no advantage from housing benefit that is established at the same rate as elsewhere. Pensioners who are owner-occupiers have, in many cases, already paid out for their mortgages. They may be asset-rich but cash poor. However, pensioners in receipt of housing benefit are not getting any advantage from that, because the rate is standard across the UK. Therefore where our costs are lower we are not getting any assistance, and where our costs are higher we are actually losing out. Will the Minister for Social Development address that?
We do not want minimum income guarantees in Northern Ireland. Let us make that clear. We want the earnings link for all pensions, not means-tested benefits. Last week I addressed the National Pensioners’ Convention in the City hall. A spokesperson there said that the elderly are fed up being made to think that they are getting something for nothing. The elderly contributed to schemes when they were earning money and paid their National Insurance contributions; they deserve to have the index link restored. The Government, including our own Ministers, talk constantly about getting people into work and off welfare, as if some stigma is attached to welfare. At the same time, we drive the elderly in the direction of welfare: either there is a stigma attached to welfare or there is not. If the Government think that there is, and want people off it, then why are they saying to the elderly that more of them should go on it? They are increasing the number of means-tested benefits, which the elderly are increasingly unlikely to take up. This is not an old-age problem but an age-old problem.
I am sick to death of the Labour Government writing reports such as ‘Building a Better Britain for Older People’. It is mostly rhetoric. We should set up an inter-departmental committee for the elderly. The Minister for Social Development is here, as are the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety — who has a lot of responsibility in relation to home-helps et cetera — and the Minister for Regional Development. We have discussed transport, meals on wheels, home helps, basic pensions and basic allowances. Let us get that committee off the ground as soon as possible.

Rev Robert Coulter: I speak as perhaps the only Member on the Floor of the House who is in the group called the elderly. Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I are in a unique position today. The learned Clerk might clarify whether that puts me in an awkward position — do I need to declare an interest in the debate? I thank Mr McCarthy and, on behalf of the elderly, all the young ones in the Assembly who have supported the motion. We, the elderly, are not asking for hand-outs; we are asking for dignified treatment. We are asking the Government to take seriously the fact that we have, through a lifetime, paid our subscriptions. We are in our twilight years and ask to be treated with dignity.
Ms Lewsley raised the point that the Government’s proposition is not straightforward. Those who have invested in private pension schemes are being penalised. We must not simply call for pensions to be increased by £5; we should examine these issues also. Indeed, I take exception to the proposition that £5 should be added. The proposition should have said "at least £5 should be added" because to introduce a finite figure of £5 is to limit the effectiveness of the proposition.
I do not want to take up time as most of the points I was going to make have already been made very eloquently. As a member of the elderly sector — and the elderly make up a third of the population — I thank the House and ask all Members to support the motion.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Before calling the next Member I must declare an interest in this matter. Not only am I slightly above retiring age; I am also on the board of Help the Aged.

Mr Alex Attwood: I want to address this issue in a slightly more "targeted" way — if that is not an appropriate use of the word. This issue is about the income that pensioners enjoy and, more particularly, the income that pensioners in poverty endure. That is the theme that I want to address in the context of giving my support to the letter and spirit of the motion.
Figures quoted earlier indicate that over two million pensioners in Britain are now living in poverty. There are approximately 10 million pensioners in Britain so we have a duty to everyone, but particularly to the most disadvantaged. My comments are made in this context. We are debating this issue because for many decades pensioners have not been treated as they should have been, and that was particularly so over the last two decades of Tory rule. During that period the highest one fifth of pensioner incomes rose by 80%, but the lowest one fifth of incomes grew by just 30%. Particular attention must be paid to this disparity of income, and especially to the incomes of pension claimants living in poverty or on low incomes.
There are a number of responses to the motion itself and to the general problem of poverty among pensioners. First, there must be a guaranteed minimum income for all pensioners, which must benefit those living in poverty the most. The Government have announced the introduction of a guaranteed minimum income, which will increased to £90 by next April. A minimum of £90 is not an adequate answer to pensioner poverty.
The family budget unit has produced a low-cost but acceptable income standard which, it claims, is needed by households with people aged between 65 and 74 to maintain a healthy diet, material security, social participation and a sense of control. The unit thinks that the acceptable standard of income for a single person is £123 and is £184 for a couple. Under these criteria, neither the single person nor the couple would have the benefit of a car.
We should also support an increase — indeed, a very significant increase — in the guaranteed minimum income, because that would benefit the two million people who are pensioners and who are in poverty.
Secondly, the Government have made the welcome announcement of pension credit for those who have saved over the years, but who have not saved as much as others might have been able to do. We need to have that pension credit introduced earlier than the Government’s projected date of 2003. In that way, those who have been in work and have the benefit of savings will also have their incomes increased because their pensions and savings are not adequate to meet their day-to-day living costs.

Prof Monica McWilliams: This is all extremely complicated. More and more pieces are being added on, and that is just making the system worse when we should be making it simpler to combat the low take-up. Does the Member agree?

Mr Alex Attwood: We accept that the state pension should be made to reflect increases in earnings. That is the simple solution, and I am saying "Yes, let us take that step." However, if you are still living on £90 a week as a poor pensioner, the fact that you are going to get an increase in your pension based upon a link to income will not address your difficulties or your poverty. Even if your pension is now related to income, how can you undo the fact that for 18years that has not been the case? Linking pension to incomes is a help, but it is not a solution— there may be no simple solution. The problem has arisen over 18years of disadvantage and discrimination against pensioners and the poor, and it will therefore require a complex and systematic solution over a number of years. That is what I am trying to flag up.
This motion goes down the road of fairer provision for pensioners, but if we are to address the multiple layers of deprivation among the poor, we have to go further down that road. We should move to compel all employers to contribute to a pension for their employees. We should also have all employer and stakeholder schemes provide a minimum income at retirement, based either on a portion of final earnings or on a career average.
This is a multi-layered problem that requires a multi- dimensional answer. The motion contains two answers, but more are required.

Mr Mark Robinson: All of us will one day be pensioners so we have a vested interest in this subject. As the issue of pensions is currently making the headlines, the motion is timely. I do, however, hope that the proposer is aware that, because this is not a matter for the Assembly, it is unlikely to sway the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We must also realise that it is unlikely that either of the main political parties will restore the link as suggested in the motion. Nevertheless, it sets down an important marker for the people of Northern Ireland that we Assembly Members do take an interest in our pensioners.
I recall the clear and definitive remarks made by AlistairDarling when he put his proposals in the Commons in December1998 for the reform of pensions. These were said to herald the beginning of the most radical pension reform ever. The idea that the young and middle-aged workers would opt out of SERPS (state earnings-related pension scheme) was thought to be essential to maintaining some form of pension strategy. It is evident from the lack of opt-outs that people still prefer the state pension. Mr Darling suggested that companies be given greater powers to force people to get out of SERPS. This did not prove very popular either. He also told us that there would be a new round of means-testing to target the less well off. As we all heard at the recent Labour Party conference, this proved equally repugnant.
In place of these changes it was proposed to set up the stakeholder pension. Most of us consider what we have paid into the National Insurance scheme to be our stakeholder pension. We have witnessed civil government being prepared to let the state pension wither on the vine and then blame those who have pensions for causing the problem, although a growing body of evidence suggests that the problem is being deliberately exaggerated in order to force through some very unpleasant policies.
The ongoing figures in respect of pensioners have produced the expression "pensioner poverty". The long-term outlook is that by 2050 the state pension for pensioners will be £44 less than the minimum income guarantee level. That is hardly a fact to make all future pensioners cheerful, and it is why we need to make things right for our existing pensioners.
When we look at the present state of Northern Ireland’s 220,000 pensioners we see that not only do 10% fall below the poverty line but a further percentage are discounted because they live on the poverty line. At least 20% of pensioners are in poverty; nationally, the figure is over 22%.
Since the removal of SERPS, pensions have decreased, in real terms, by over £30 per week. A recent survey showed that two out of three pensioners have an annual income of less than £6,000 a year. It is little wonder that most pensioners live with constant worry about money and about losing their independence.
In supporting the motion I cite an old slogan, which has never been denied: how we treat the elderly is indicative of the kind of society we are.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have to declare an interest because I am on the threshold of joining the old-age pension group and I might have a double-vested interest in this motion.
Going back to the 1950s, ours used to be an idealistic society, but socialism, and the Labour Party, have been decried this morning. One motto at that time was "from the cradle to the grave". Ours was a society that attempted to look after its people from the cradle to the grave. Today one is lucky to get as far as the cradle, never mind the grave. There is no doubt, a LeasCheann Comhairle, that we owe a debt to our older people — a debt that they paid to society in their own way during their lifetime.
Although I imagine that growing old can be very dignified, there can be nothing more undignified than growing old with a sense of insecurity, wonderment or bewilderment about how you will be provided for. It is OK if you are surrounded by your family — your sons or daughters — who will, in difficult times, or perhaps at all times, support your lifestyle or give you some comforts in your old age.
As Mr Attwood said, there is real poverty among old-age pensioners; poverty that we do not see and that is suffered by those who are too proud to come forward and avail of social security benefits. These are people who were reared with an independent mind and means, and who have a degree of pride within them. They suffer in silence and continue wanting and needing, but no one takes up that want or need.
In supporting the motion — I will not quote statistics, for they have already been discussed — I have to say that, while the debate is welcome and that £5 is a notional value, it is totally insufficient. I accept that pensions should be income linked, but many people did not have an income during their lifetime. Many people have no index-related earnings, and we should be looking at the generality of elderly society. That is why the notional idea of £5 is insufficient.
I believe it was last week that Gordon Brown mentioned a figure of £100, which seemed to go off the screen. Even during the Labour Party conference, I do not recall — apart from Barbara Castle’s brave and worthwhile intervention — that the notion of £100 came back onto the table. However, we should look at that kind of sum.
It is not enough to put a figure on old age, saying that if a person is 65 we shall quantify it by giving him £100. But doing so gives us a base from which we can work. It takes up the slack for those whose incomes are not related to earnings or who do not have people around them to support them in their old age. It is unfortunate that there was a degree of negativity from one side of the House, but I suppose that is to be expected. I find it difficult to be negative about any motion which attempts to relieve the hardship of the elderly.
Free transport should be looked at very seriously. Let us take the example of what is happening in the rest of Ireland. We talked about the cost, but if empty buses are travelling round our streets, it costs nothing — or perhaps only a negligible sum — to put people into them. In the Twenty-Six Counties, free travel is not available at peak times, when people commute to and from work in the mornings and evenings. That point should be examined when the barrier of costing is raised.
In conclusion, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I should like to mention a friend who, when discussing the elderly, spoke of "walking slow and going fast". This is true, and we have an obligation and duty to ensure that we are allowed to live out the latter days of our lives in dignity and free from poverty.
The sitting was suspended at 12.28 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Mr John Dallat: I support the motion, although it stops far short of the overall needs of our senior citizens. It is nevertheless very welcome and provides an opportunity to appeal for a fresh approach to how we treat our pensioners. We must work towards an end to the begging-bowl syndrome, which is unacceptable and unnecessary in the modern society. After a lifetime of contributing to that society through work, bringing up a family and caring for the previous generation, our senior citizens deserve better treatment. If they need financial help, and are brave enough to ask for it, they are bombarded with multi-coloured forms which look more like large novels rather than sincere attempts to establish need.
Many of those now retiring lived through the war, experienced the poverty of the 1950s and helped reconstruct the country in the 1960s, building new roads, ships, houses and working on farms. They brought home minimum wages and had little, or no, protection under employment laws, such as they were. They had no equality legislation, and human rights was only an international issue. They scraped together what they could to educate the next generation, believing that generation would have a better life, proper skills and secure jobs. Many succeeded, but those who failed are not to be condemned.
Money was hard to come by — very hard — and the idea of private pension schemes was beyond the reach of most people. Superannuation was attached only to the best jobs, and certainly not a word in the vocabulary of most working-class people. For many, paying national insurance was a luxury, open only to those in permanent or long-term employment. For others it was work when they could get it, with employers who did not always live up to their responsibility of paying those national insurance contributions. We must not condemn those people to a second round of hard times in what should be the sunset years of their lives. We should not, and must not, allow another round of hardship for the very people who rebuilt this country in the post-war years.
Supporting an across the board increase is fine. However, there is genuine concern that those who do not have private pensions or savings, and have not contributed to superannuation schemes, will cease to be targeted for benefits. That must not happen. It is the job of the Government to ensure equality for its citizens, to target social need and to ensure that all are protected by human rights legislation. No section of our community is more deserving of those ideals than our pensioners, who ploughed the furrows that we now reap.
I speak from personal experience, as do other Members. We must not let our pensioners down. There has been too much dilly-dallying over free transport. Despite the pilot studies and all the promises made by Lord Dubs, latterly by Peter Robinson and more recently by GregoryCampbell, I still do not have a free transport policy in place, which would allow our senior citizens to retain their mobility, stay active and, without doubt, extend their natural life in a healthy way.
Many of the other issues relating to pensioners were dealt with in the debate on local community nursing. That was a very good debate and showed that the Assembly really cares about senior citizens. What a pity there are those who want to pull it down.
Many of the people referred to earlier, who are suffering ill health, might not be in that position had they the proper resources to remain mobile, eat healthily, avail of affordable leisure facilities and continue to feel important and valuable members of society. A society that cannot afford to care for its citizens now in retirement is one that has failed all its people. To neglect yesterday’s working population is to do the same to the present working population tomorrow. As life is short it soon becomes everyone’s turn. It is in all our interest to address this issue now and not perpetuate the inequality of the past. Let us get rid of the notion that, because we are an ageing population, it is somehow permissible to skimp on support for the retired.
On the contrary, the issue is all the more important, not less important. I support this motion, because affording equality to all is one of the underlying principles of this Assembly, and pensioners should most certainly be included.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the motion. Some of the comments made by Members this morning may be slightly at variance, but the thrust of the motion is clear.
Pensioners need help, and that is why this motion has been put forward. If physically the Assembly cannot put any more money into their pockets, it is up to us to at least try to support them. As the cost of living continues to rise the people who are most affected are those of pensionable age. Increases in taxes, cuts in services, increases in retail prices affect us all in one way or another. But these economic developments affect senior citizens even more.
As the cost of living has risen, the true value of the state pension has miserably failed to keep pace. Yet the Government have consistently ignored the resulting plight of those who depend on this income to survive. The announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was to give each pensioner an extra 75p a week is laughable when one considers the pressures and hardships endured by many older people throughout the community, and at the recent Labour Party conference this was acknowledged as a faux pas.
A Member referred to Toryism. Whether the Government of the day are Conservatives or conservatives, whether they call themselves New Labour, or whatever, there is an onus on them to do their best. Senior citizens have spent their entire lives working in this community and contributing to its wealth, and it would be true to say that without their collective endeavours, we would not be where we are today. We must acknowledge their efforts: it is their taxes, their sweat, their tears and their blood that have made this country what it is. Senior citizens deserve more than to merely survive on the state pension. They also deserve better representation from elected representatives. Successive Governments at Westminster have seen fit almost to punish senior citizens with legislation. Stripped of their life savings, those who have worked and striven to contribute positively to society are then forced to pay for care. It is about time they got a fair deal from life and a fair deal from the Government.
Another factor which directly affects senior citizens is the price of home-heating oil. It was recently announced that the cost of home-heating oil in Northern Ireland has risen by some 150% over the last two years. This will obviously affect the elderly even more when winter comes. For a number of years the issue of how our pensioners meet the cost of heating their homes over the winter months and during cold periods has been highlighted in both the local and national press. However, the cold-weather payments cannot keep up with and do not take account of such huge rises in the price of oil. This problem must therefore be tackled as a matter of urgency. The cold-weather payment of £150 is a drop in the ocean, when you consider that the cost of oil has risen by 150%. Results which have been published show that the average cost of 900 litres of home-heating oil is now £208, which is a record in Northern Ireland — a record we would rather not have. The reason being stated for this huge jump in the cost is the ongoing price variation of crude oil, which, at the start of last year, cost 10 dollars a barrel, and now costs 32 dollars. The situation is currently so bad that prices seem to be escalating weekly, often by as much as 5%. That will give Members an idea of the impact that this is having on society.
While the rise in the cost of home-heating oil affects all those who have oil-fired central heating, the impact will be most felt by those who have the least amount of financial stability and flexibility, which inevitably includes the elderly. It is estimated that about 600 lives are lost each year due to illness connected with the cold. That should make the severity of the situation hit home, and I have no doubt that the price of fuel was a major contributing factor in the loss of many of those lives. It is therefore logical to assume that further increases in the cost of fuel will inevitably lead to increased financial burdens being put on the elderly. Many people have to decide each week whether to purchase food or fuel, as they do not have the financial wherewithal to do both. They have to decide on a Monday, or on the day they get their pension — usually a Tuesday — whether to buy food or fuel. What a decision to have to make. In a society like ours, proper care should be given to those people who need it most.
There have been discussions about the current opportunities for free travel. Councils have the opportunity to contribute to this scheme, and indeed many have. It is important that all councils realise that this is an opportunity to get involved and to contribute to free travel for senior citizens. The councils that have not yet contributed should do so.
Statistics show that by the year 2020 the over-65s will constitute the majority of our population. It is essential that the Government take action now to cater for that. Older people deserve the right to live life to the full. On reaching the age of 60 or 65 people should not be forced to just survive, or to go through the motions of living. Life should not be over for them; it should be just starting. For many people retirement should be a chance to do things that they have not done before. It is important that society acknowledge that at the age of 60 or 65 people are not finished — life is beginning. Many people of that age and above contribute greatly to society. We must acknowledge that. They should be able to live their lives to the fullest, whether that means becoming involved in education, sport, or community activities.
Where would we be without the senior citizens who make a valuable contribution to society in a voluntary capacity? They help in community groups and organisations, and help younger people in their jobs. Through education, we should give our senior citizens the opportunity to become involved in activities that they may not have had the chance to do when they were working or bringing up families. In our society, people of all ages should be treated with equal respect and attention. We must strive to give senior citizens the same degree of freedom of opportunity as everyone else.
In conclusion, I congratulate groups such as Age Concern — particularly Age Concern — on the work that they have undertaken and the assistance that they provide. Their work is tremendous. That has been acknowledged by many in society and has been welcomed by the recipients of its services. The work they carry out is invaluable and their efforts should be recognised. I support the motion.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have listened with interest to the contributions from around the House. There seems to be some confusion as to the role that we play here. In my opening submission, I hope to clarify that.
I appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue. We all want the best for pensioners, and we want to ensure that every pensioner has a decent income in retirement. Nobody will disagree with that. Social security and pensions are transferred matters and fall within the competence of this Assembly. Northern Ireland has its own body of social security and pension law. Indeed, yesterday the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill had its First Stage. However, this is underpinned by the long-standing policy of parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in such matters.
This long-established policy is based on the principle that since people in Northern Ireland pay the same rates of taxation and national insurance contributions as people in the rest of the United Kingdom, we have access to the same range of benefits, paid at the same rates and subject to the same rules and conditions. Parity has served Northern Ireland well. For example, contributory benefits such as retirement pensions are funded from national insurance contributions. The amount raised through these contributions in Northern Ireland has for many years been insufficient to meet the cost of those benefits. The Northern Ireland national insurance fund is topped up with a transfer from the Great Britain fund.
Similarly, non-contributory and income-related benefits are financed from taxation revenue. Expenditure is demand-led and is outside the managed block.
Under section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Secretary of State for Social Security and I are under a duty to consult one another with a view to maintaining, to the extent agreed by us, single systems of social security, pensions and child support for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Since 1980, state pensions have been uprated in line with the annual rate of inflation. The Secretary of State for Social Security has a statutory duty to review the rate of pensions annually to determine whether they have retained their value in relation to the general level of prices, represented by the increase in the retail price index (RPI) at the end of September. The Secretary of State is then required to lay an Order before Parliament to increase pensions by at least the percentage increase in the RPI. Whenever the Secretary of State makes an uprating Order, my Department is empowered under section 132 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to make a corresponding Order for Northern Ireland. Current legislation does not allow my department to pay different rates of pension.
The rate of inflation in September 1999 was 1·1%. That resulted in the 75p increase from last April that Members have identified as a source of great disquiet. I fully appreciate that to many people 75p seems a paltry sum. However, we must remember that although in previous years the increase was higher, that was due to the higher rate of inflation. The purchasing power of the increase was the same.
While the basic state pension is the foundation of retirement income, it cannot, and was never intended to, provide everyone with a decent income in retirement. In some ways, increasing the basic state pension is not an effective way of targeting resources on those who need help. Over the last 20 years the incomes of the richest fifth of pensioners have risen by 80%, while those of the poorest fifth grew by only 30%. The proportion of pensioners with incomes below 40% of average income rose fivefold. Simply increasing the state pension would not necessarily help those who need it most. The poorest pensioners would lose it, pound for pound, from their income support.
In recent years the priority has been to tackle poverty among pensioners and respond to the growing inequality between the poorest and the richest. The minimum income guarantee (MIG), payable through income support, is designed to tackle the problem of pensioner poverty. Under this guarantee, no pensioner has to get by on a weekly income of less than £78·45 for single pensioners or £121·95 for pensioner couples. No pensioner should have to survive on the basic pension alone. The minimum income guaranteed will be increased to £90 per week from April next year. Also from next April, the amount of savings that a pensioner can have without affecting the guaranteed payment will be increased from £3,000 to £6,000. The upper savings limit at which there is no entitlement to MIG will increase from £8,000 to £12,000. These changes are designed to tackle the problem of pensioner poverty head on.
The introduction of the minimum income guarantee has been backed up by the launch of a take-up campaign to try and ensure that help gets to those who need it most. The new tele-claims service means that pensioners can claim over the phone. The early indications are that many more pensioners are now receiving extra help as a direct result of this campaign.
The result of the minimum income guarantee is that the poorest pensioners are now, on average, £8 per week better off, over and above inflation, than they were in 1997. While the priority, quite rightly, has been to tackle the problem of pensioner poverty — and I am sure that Members would agree that that has to be our number one priority — the concerns of the wider pensioner community have been, and continue to be, addressed.
A series of measures aimed at helping pensioners in general has been introduced. This includes the reintroduction of free eye tests, the introduction of winter fuel payments, and the introduction of free television licences from November for people aged over 75. I recently confirmed that the winter fuel payment is to be increased from £100 to £150 this winter. The payments will start to be made next month. Pensioners have also benefited from the reduction of VAT on fuel and the more generous income tax allowances — both of which are matters beyond the competence of the Assembly.
There are still problems that need to be addressed. For example, we have the problem of pensioners who have a modest occupational pension, or savings, that puts them beyond the limits of income-related benefits. Many of those pensioners feel — and I have sympathy with their view — that they are being penalised for being prudent during their working lives, when they paid into a pension scheme or put money aside for their old age.
It is important that people are allowed to benefit from having been prudent during their working lives and for them to share in the rising prosperity of the nation. We have already moved to improve the situation by doubling the lower capital limit and by increasing the upper capital limit to £12,000 from next April. This allows pensioners with savings of up to £12,000 to benefit from the minimum income guarantee. That is only a first step.
Work is under way to develop the new pension credit. The new pension credit will ensure that not only do we remove the penalty for savings but that we actually reward savings. The proposal is to abolish the capital limits and to instead take into account the income received from savings. For every pound saved, the person receiving the pension credit will get a cash addition. I hope to publish detailed plans for consultation on a new pension credit later in the autumn.
While many pensioners currently enjoy the benefits of second pensions, whether from the state earnings-related pension scheme or from occupational or personal pension schemes, we want to ensure that as many people as possible can build up a decent second-tier pension by the time that they retire. The new stakeholder pensions to be available from next April will offer the option of a safe, flexible low-cost way to save for a pension for those people who do not have access to an occupational pension or for whom a personal pension is not a cost-effective option. They will also allow those who cease work to continue to pay contributions or to take a break from paying contributions without incurring any financial penalty.
While the state earnings-related pension scheme has served many people well, it is solely earnings-related and so gives least help to those with the lowest earnings and who need help the most. It also gives no help to carers or to disabled people.
The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which is currently before the House, contains provisions to reform the state earnings-related pension scheme and to have a more generous state second pension to give more security in retirement to low and moderate earners and to carers and disabled people with broken work records.
It will significantly increase the additional pensions of low earners. For example, a person earning £120 a week will get £40 more from the state second pension than they would have got from the state earnings-related pension scheme. Many carers and disabled people will get a second pension for the first time. The review to determine the rate of increase for next year’s pension is currently under way, and the rate of basic pension from next April will be announced as part of the pre-Budget report.
I understand Members’ feelings on restoring the earnings link. However, it may be helpful if I explain the background to the current method of operating. Successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, have resisted calls for the restoration of the earnings link. This is not purely on the grounds of the cost of restoring the link. In UK terms, £6·5 billion extra is being spent on pensioners over the course of this Parliament. That is £2·5 billion more than would have been spent on restoring the earnings link.
Half of this £6·5 billion is going to the poorest third of pensioners — those most in need of help. There are problems with restoring the earnings link. First, it does not target resources where they are most needed, and secondly, there is the long-term sustainability of funding in the light of projected demographic changes. By 2010 the cost of earnings link in the United Kingdom would rise to £7·5 billion per annum, and by 2040, it is estimated, there will be 43% more people over pension age than there are now.
There are also wider implications. It will result, for example, in increased health and service costs, all of which will have to be met by a falling pensioner support ratio. That is the number of people of working age compared with the number of people of pension age. This problem, no matter how unpalatable, can not be ignored.
I appreciate the depth of Members’ feeling on this issue. However, there are those who would say that it is easy to call for increased pensions if you do not have to pick up the bill. As I said, social security and pensions are transferred matters, and if the House feels sufficiently strongly about this issue, and I emphasise this point, it is free to consider providing for a different increase for Northern Ireland pensioners. This would require an amendment to the existing law, and I would be under a statutory duty to consult with the Secretary of State for Social Security before such a change.
More importantly, in such a scenario the additional costs would have to be borne out of the Northern Ireland block. Preliminary estimates suggest that the net benefit costs of a £5 per week increase would cost £40 million. The Department for Social Development would also have to fund the associated administrative costs as it does not have any computer infrastructure to allow it to pay a separate Northern Ireland-only increase. But from where in the Northern Ireland block would we find the necessary £40 million? That is the stark reality, the big question, that we face. I did not hear anyone address that point.
We want to do all that we can to help older people, and I have set out the context of current pensions policy and outlined the legal framework within which the underpinning policy of parity operates. I am sure that Members will agree that the costs, not to mention the implications, of breaking parity would be considerable and not a step to take lightly.
I have outlined the short-term efforts to help poor pensioners and the longer-term steps being taken to ensure that future pensioners retire with a decent second pension. However, if it is the will of the House, I am very happy to make representations to the Secretary of State for Social Security.
I will now deal with some of the points raised by Members. I have no problem with Mr McCarthy’s motion that is before the House today. It might be a little unreal, but sometimes we have to go through that sort of a world. The issue of free transport for pensioners is not a social security matter, as I am sure he would acknowledge. It is being dealt with by the Department for Regional Development.
Joan Carson said that she wants those with most savings to be protected. I am sorry that she is not present to hear my answer, but that matter will be covered by the pensioners’ credit proposal. She also said that the Assembly has no power to deal with the £5 change.
It may come as a surprise to some Members, but the Assembly could change things if it wanted to do so. However, it would need to be fully aware of the costs if it were to go down that particular road. To pay the additional £5 mentioned in the motion would cost approximately £40million. The administrative costs and those for the change in the computerisation infrastructure would also have to be met. I look forward to other Ministers saying that they will give up £40 million or £50million so that we can do that. Some people are saying that it is GordonBrown’s problem. If the Assembly wants to make a change in people’s lives it can do so — but it will cost money. If we go down that particular road we would be departing from parity and I would be under an obligation to take the matter up directly with the London Minister.
Ms Lewsley referred to 75p as being an insufficient proposed increase. That was last year’s figure — and I want to put that on record.
MrMurphy talked about pensioner benefits in the Republic of Ireland. To put it a bit more succinctly, what was being asked was how do social security benefits in NorthernIreland compare with those in the Republic of Ireland. A broadly similar range of benefits is offered in the Republic, however, it is difficult to make comparisons. We must take into account the exchange rate and its variations. It is also important to compare how the benefits are funded, for example, the differing taxation levels. Many of the benefits such as free electricity, telephone and gas allowances and free public transport are not generally regarded as social security benefits and would not be funded by the social security system.
I was asked if the Department has undertaken any work to compare the social security systems in NorthernIreland with the Republic of Ireland? A comparison of benefits was carried out in the late 1980s. Benefits are, by their nature, complex and in many instances they are tailored to meet individual needs. General comparisons are therefore difficult to make and may not be helpful. Some of the help given to specific groups such as free or reduced transport may not fall into the traditional definition of social security.
MsMcWilliams raised the issue of 15,000people not claiming income support. The take-up campaign is under way and to date 5,000claim forms have been issued, 4,000 have been returned and 2,000 people are now getting the minimum income guarantee, MIG.
The retirement pension scheme is not one in which people build up a fund. It is a pay-as-you-go scheme and what was paid in last week has been spent this week. Regarding the Member’s suggestion of an inter-departmental Committee that would be a matter for the Assembly.
Rev Robert Coulter said that those paying into private pension schemes are being penalised. Most members of private pension schemes have their contributions enhanced by national insurance rebates and tax incentives throughout their membership of the national insurance scheme. Pension credits will also help these people. The retirement projection cost for the year 2000-2001 is £885·7million. For 2001-02 the projected figure is £929·4 million.
I trust that I have covered all the points, but if, after reading Hansard, any should come to light that I feel have not adequately been dealt with, I will certainly take them up further in writing.

Mrs Eileen Bell: My Colleague and I have been very impressed by the speeches, and I thank Members for their support. This may be a reserve matter to a certain extent but that should not stop us debating the issue here, and let Hansard declare our concern and support. As the Minister pointed out, we do have some mechanism to make that more than just a vocal concern of support.
The confidence in this issue is reflected in the consensus and in the content of the speeches. It is said that a sign of good government is that the young and the elderly are treated properly, fully and effectively — from the cradle to the grave. I have to say that the elderly of our society have a lot to be concerned about. They have been ignored for years. Health and benefits have been inadequate and recently, people have felt it necessary to come together all over the United Kingdom and bring their concerns to the attention of the Government of the day, and even more recently to the attention of this Assembly.
Perhaps Ms McWilliam’s idea is not actually "pie in the sky". Nobody said that anything we deal with will be easy. The fact that we would have to break parity should not entirely knock us of the idea. We should consider the idea of an inter-parliamentary committee to be overseen by the junior Ministers. As the Minister rightly said, that is something for the Assembly to consider. We should not let the idea that we are breaking parity put us off.

John Taylor: Can the Member confirm whether she supports the principle of parity?

Mrs Eileen Bell: I do support the principle of parity, but, like any rule, it can be looked at to see if it can be amended in any way.
This Assembly is about responsibility and accountability to the people of Northern Ireland, and we must be seen to be doing that, difficult though it may be. Pensions, like other benefits, are extremely complex — as was outlined in several speeches — and very difficult for the average senior citizen to understand. Anyone who has been in the citizens advice bureaux, or any other voluntary area, would tell you that that is an everyday happening.
Our first concern should be to draw up a clearer and more structured application system for pensions. Why is the rate of pension not sufficient of itself, and why should people have the additional stress of applying for other benefits to bring their income up to an adequate level? The Minister said that retirement pension was never designed to be a one and only pension, but I really do think that we need to look at that issue.
I also know that the present Labour Government have refused to link pensions to wages, saying that it would not improve the lot of the poorer pensioners. That may be right, but the transitional moves that Gordon Brown announced last week at his conference to increase the overall level of pensions has started with the princely sum of 75p last year. Incidentally, I must express disappointment for, as far as I know, there was no Northern Ireland MP in the House of Commons who opposed that increase.
Last year, Gordon Brown promised to raise the basic state pension dramatically next April, and again in 2002. Can we believe him, or do we take it with a cynical pinch of salt, remembering that next year could be an election year?
I am concerned that this transitional arrangement will again involve cash credit schemes that people have talked about, and the income guarantee. They are again going to add to the complexity of the application system. I must also tell Members that our Westminster colleagues from all parties are still getting massive mailbags containing loads of queries and fears from elderly people in spite of Government promises. As was stated in ‘The Guardian’, they have conceded the cash — well, hopefully they have — but they have not conceded the principle of linkage.
In recent years, people such as Jack Jones and organisations such as Age Concern and Help the Aged have brought the issue of proper treatment of our elderly citizens to the attention of the Government; the Member for Lagan Valley (Ms Lewsley) said last week, they have no better supporter than Barbara Castle. At last, politicians are realising that there are votes to be gained from this large section of the electorate. I hope that they will remember the contribution made by those people over the years when they consider pension entitlement.
I know that the Minister has dealt efficiently with several comments that were made. I would like to make a comment about free transport, because we are not just talking about income we are talking about quality of life. As it is local authorities have problems with their budgets. They give as much as they can, within their remit, to their borough or area, and the Government are passing the buck by saying that local authorities should pay part of the cost. We will find ample opportunity to help our senior citizens and we will ask the Minister for Regional Development to do the same.
I want to reaffirm Rev Robert Coulter’s statement that pensioners are looking for dignity, not handouts. The Minister referred to take-up rates. One of my first jobs — it was over 20 years ago — was something similar to the take-up campaign. I hope that the people involved do not come across the level of ignorance that I found among people sitting in their homes, not realising that they could claim, regardless of all the television coverage.
Ms Lewsley and Mr Attwood mentioned the minimum income guarantee and said that that would benefit low income family budgets. I hope that it does, but I must stress again my concern about the complexity of the whole thing.
The Minister’s comments were formal and objective, and rightly so, but one of the main reasons that we are having this debate is that people are still living on or below the poverty line. That is the real fact, and it does not matter how wonderful the Government’s ideas for the next year are. People need a basic rate of retirement pension that will keep them going, and that is not happening. That is why we are having this debate.
I would like the Minister to say whether the take-up campaign has started in Northern Ireland. If it has, what numbers will we get? Only then will we know that the people in Northern Ireland are getting their full entitlement.
As Mr McCarthy said, the message from the Assembly is that we will not fudge the issue. We will support the people who have already made their contribution to society. We have a duty to support them, and we will fight on this issue. It may be a reserved matter, but we must try to influence the Government however we can through the Committees. It is not just a question of liking income and pension; it is about the quality of life that we want to uphold. That should be the right of senior citizens. As Mr Attwood said, it is a multi-layered scheme and a multi-layered issue. We must start today by loudly proclaiming our support and working towards a better pension and a better situation for all of us, including the future pensioners.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls for an immediate increase from the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s package of £5 per week in retirement pensions and for restoration of the index-linking of pensions to earnings.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill

Accelerated Passage

Mr Donovan McClelland: We move to the motion for accelerated passage. I should like to remind Members that a Bill shall receive accelerated passage only if there is leave of the Assembly. If any Member objects the motion will fall.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg to move
That in accordance with Standing Order 40(2) this Assembly grants accelerated passage to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill.
The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill is an important piece of legislation which will make provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to that made for Great Britain by the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. There is a long-standing principle of parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the fields of social security and pensions, and latterly to child support. Given that people in Northern Ireland pay the same rate of income tax and national insurance contributions as those in Great Britain, they are entitled to expect changes in the legislation in Great Britain to apply in Northern Ireland with minimal delay.
The Great Britain Act received Royal Assent on 28 July 2000, and some of its provisions came into force on that date. The corresponding Northern Ireland Provisions Act cannot come into operation until this Bill has completed its passage through the Assembly. The remaining provisions of both Acts will be brought into operation by a series of Commencement Orders. For instance, section 41 of the Great Britain Act, which allows for the making of regulations relating to the sharing of State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) rights has been brought into operation from 28 September 2000. The regulations made under that section will come into force on 1 December 2000. The Northern Ireland equivalent is clause 37 of this Bill.
Clause 37 provides powers to enable my Department to set out, in regulations, how the cash equivalent of SERPS rights is to be calculated under pension sharing at the time of divorce annulity to give a former spouse a pension in his or her own right. Pension sharing comes into operation for petitions for divorce annulity made on or after 1 December 2000. Therefore it is vital that the regulations under clause 37 be operative from that date. Otherwise there would be no legal authority to make the necessary calculations to facilitate the sharing of SERPS rights, and former spouses would suffer as a consequence.
Another Commencement Order soon to be made will bring further provisions of the Great Britain Act into force progressively from 1 November 2000. These include the powers to make regulations providing for the introduction of the new decision-making and appeals processes for housing benefit. I can not stress too strongly the importance of making the corresponding Northern Ireland regulations as soon as possible after their Great Britain counterparts.
The processes for deciding claims for housing benefit provided for in the Bill will differ substantially from the present method. The detail will be set out in the regulations and the staff of the Housing Executive and the Rate Collection Agency, who will operate the new arrangements, need to be able to familiarise themselves with these processes before their introduction next April.
Welfare rights bodies, which advise and represent appellants, will also need time to prepare for the new system. Although the full implementation of the child support reforms is not due to take place until April 2002, the Minister responsible in Great Britain, Baroness Hollis, has drawn my attention to some aspects of the changes which could be introduced at an earlier date.
The provisions, all of which can be introduced with minimum disruption, relate to fines for failure to provide information on the provision of false information; removal of the requirement to appoint an inspector for individual child support cases; the presumption of parentage where the man is named on the birth certificate, or where he and the mother of the child were married at any time between conception and birth; and removal of driving licences for failure to comply with child support maintenance requirements.
With the exception of the provisions relating to driving licences, which she hopes to introduce in April 2001, Baroness Hollis would like to bring these changes into operation in January 2001. She has asked me to do everything possible to implement the corresponding Northern Ireland provisions from the same dates.
I am therefore seeking leave of the Assembly to the use of the accelerated passage procedure set out in Standing Order 40(2), so that we can bring Northern Ireland law on these matters into line with that in Great Britain with minimum delay. The granting of leave for the accelerated passage procedures means that there will not be a formal Committee stage. However, my predecessor, Mr Nigel Dodds, discussed the content of the Bill with the Social Development Committee before the summer recess. Committee members are therefore aware of the broad thrust of the proposals. There will be an opportunity for all Members to make their views known at the Second and further Stages.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill is a very detailed and complex piece of legislation. Given that it became available only yesterday, it is difficult to identify possible areas of contention.
While I take on board what has been said and accept that this legislation will simplify the benefits system — particularly for child support — I have reservations about it. The tool of accelerated passage often takes through time-consuming pieces of legislation that make small or cosmetic changes, thus freeing up Members for other activities. However, I would not advocate this as a means of avoiding work. The only chance Members get to scrutinise Bills is at Committee Stage, so I do not favour setting the precedent of using accelerated passage in the Assembly. However, I am not objecting to this particular Bill going through accelerated passage.
Members must carry out their role in going through the details of Bills, however time-consuming, to ensure that constituents are not worse off as a result of a piece of legislation that has been rushed through. Go raibh maith agat.

John Taylor: I have been intrigued while listening to this debate and the earlier one. The Minister is quite correct in his presentation. We accept the principle of parity, and it is important that we accelerate this particular piece of legislation so that we are in line with what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom. The principle of parity is one of the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom. I was intrigued to hear the Sinn Féin Member say that she was against the procedure to accelerate, but that she was in favour of it in this case. Mrs Bell, on behalf of the Alliance Party, said that she was in favour of parity, but she wanted it reviewed. One cannot have these things both ways. Either one is in favour of parity or one is not, and one is either in favour of the accelerated procedure or one is not. Most of us support the idea of parity and the urgency of having this legislation brought into line with the rest of United Kingdom. I fully support what the Minister said.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Mr Taylor has put the point very succinctly. This is a parity Bill. It is in no one’s interest in Northern Ireland to drift behind on these matters. There will be an opportunity for Members to ask questions or express reservations about the Bill at a later stage.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I again remind Members that a Bill gets accelerated passage only by leave of the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to nemine contradicente.
Resolved:
That in accordance with Standing Order 40(2) this Assembly grants accelerated passage to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill.

County Fermanagh Economy

Private Notice Question

Sir Reg Empey: I very much regret the recent job losses experienced by the people of County Fermanagh. My Department, through local active involvement by agencies such as the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU), the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) and the Industrial Development Board (IDB), continues to do everything possible to support local economic development in the county.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I thank the Minister for giving his time to this topic. I know that he recently visited County Fermanagh, and I am sure that, like myself, he got a sense from all the people right across the community that the best hope of tackling and resolving our difficulties is through a locally elected Minister.
I want, through my question, to re-emphasise the dire economic situation in County Fermanagh. Members will have heard the names of Daintyfyt, Desmond & Sons Ltd, Blue Paths Industries, Plastofilm Ltd, and Malton Foods. All these industries in Fermanagh have closed in recent times. Already this year we have had 350 job losses. Five hundred jobs have been lost to the area within the last 18 months. The people most directly hit are those who have lost their jobs, and their families. Throughout the entire community in Fermanagh there is a palpable sense of hurt at this series of losses.
At the same time, retailers in the border areas, and particularly in County Fermanagh, have been trying to survive in the face of a currency advantage of 25p or 30p for the Southern side of the border.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Ms Jane Morrice: I advise the Member that this is a supplementary question, not a statement.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: All right.
That has brought about a massive drop in trade on the Northern side. In view of all of that, I want to ask the Minister about initiatives. The Intec Centre has recently opened. The Minister, or at least the IDB and LEDU, will be aware of that. There was an investment package of £2·1 million for phase 1. That included money from the International Fund for Ireland, the Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation, and Fermanagh District Council. The purpose is to improve the effectiveness of local industry and to make the area more attractive for —

Ms Jane Morrice: I would like you to get directly to the question.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: This is all very relevant to the question, because we are talking about inward investment. This initiative, is making the area more advantageous for that. In view of that investment, I want to ask the Minister if the IDB is prepared to back that up by forming a partnership with this local community initiative, which I believe deserves a Government response. Would that response be to use the space set aside for research and development by the IDB? Would it include the delivering to Fermanagh of more investment in technology? And the second part —

Ms Jane Morrice: I think we should let the Minister respond to those questions.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: There are three parts, and I will come to them very quickly.

Ms Jane Morrice: I cannot allow a supplementary question with three parts. I prefer that you choose the one question that you want to put to the Minister.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Do I have an opportunity to do that now?

Ms Jane Morrice: I would appreciate it if you were to ask the Minister one direct question.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Will the Minister now be an advocate for intervention packages for the border constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone?

Sir Reg Empey: I am very conscious of the unfortunate series of announcements which have been made over the last couple of months. This morning I met with the chairman and the chief executive of Fermanagh District Council at IDB headquarters. We assembled there a team representing IDB and the Training and Employment Agency, and I had briefings with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, LEDU officials from the western area and all persons within and without my Department whose views I considered relevant to the position the county finds itself in. I have also had communications from Mr Gallagher and from Minister Sam Foster; I have had a conversation with Minister Morrow; and I have looked very closely at the whole picture in the county.
The basic position is this: the IDB currently has 25 client companies in Fermanagh District Council area, employing 3,237 people. Since April 1995 IDB has offered client companies in the constituency assistance of £28·9 million in support of projects involving a total investment of £111·5 million. These projects anticipate a total of 1,000 new jobs and safeguard a further 727.
The Member describes the situation as dire. The situation is, undoubtedly, very difficult for those who have been directly affected, but I can assure the Member that tomorrow staff from the Training and Employment Agency will be visiting the Desmond factory. They will be counselling each individual there with regard to the number and nature of vacancies that currently exist. In addition, they will be establishing re-training needs, and I have been given an assurance that everyone who wishes to do so will be given the opportunity to immediately enter into the New Deal procedures. I have also been advised that a number of local companies have indicated to the Training and Employment Agency that they have needs for labour. The officials from the Training and Employment Agency will have full lists of all of those companies and vacancies to offer to the people.
To put things into perspective, as at August 2000 the number of unemployed persons in Fermanagh was 1,879. This represented 7.1% of the workforce — a drop of 14% in unemployment there in the last 12 months. That means that, in terms of unemployment, Fermanagh still has a 1·5% fall-off from the mean, compared with the rest of Northern Ireland.
Our colleagues in LEDU have also been active. Members will be aware that following the Unipork closure, the considering self employment programme has joined forces with Unipork at the site, and LEDU and the Fermanagh Enterprise Centre are working together with the former workforce to see if they can help. LEDU is going to extend that to include the workforce at Desmond and Sons Ltd. LEDU will extend funding but will be looking for matching funding, and I have already opened discussions with the council in that regard.
People need to be aware that the business formation rate in County Fermanagh is 50% above the Northern Ireland average and is, in fact, the highest amongst all district councils in Northern Ireland. There is therefore a higher start-up rate than average. This is partly due to the fact that there is a very sophisticated and highly-developed enterprise culture, which is assisting the county to counteract these matters.
Unemployment in County Fermanagh is falling; the number of people in work is rising, but inevitably, the dependence on one sector of the manufacturing economy, namely textiles, and the particular dependence on apparel, which is linked directly to the Marks and Spencer situation, has left the county vulnerable in some areas. The announcement from the company came as a surprise to us because there was no advance warning of it. I can assure the Assembly that nothing that the company asked IDB for was refused and the company will confirm that it is satisfied with the service that it has received.
We are aware of the situation and would be very happy to sit down with the council and others to look at the long-term strategy that needs to be applied to ensure that downward pressure continues with regard to unemployment. If we can be of any further assistance to the county, we will. I have already been there on two occasions. I visited a number of companies and I have plans for further visits.
There has been progress on the tourist side as well, but I am conscious of the agricultural problems surrounding the amount of disposable income. Against that backdrop, there are difficulties.
I am aware of the difficulties that a border county has with the 25% to 30% barrier in terms of currency, but as I said to the business community, that is outside our control. The problem is that the Euro is undervalued, not that the pound is overvalued. We are going to have to live with the consequences of that currency differential for the foreseeable future because I do not see any prospect of the United Kingdom joining the European single currency for at least three years. We will have to bear that in mind. I am very conscious of the difficulties for petrol retailers and others, but I do not see any immediate prospect of a change in that particular policy.

John Taylor: I think the hon Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mr Gallagher, should be roundly congratulated on having asked one of the longest questions in parliamentary history, and clearly it should be referred to the Guinness Book of Records.
On the issue of exchange rates, which the hon Member mentioned and to which the Minister has referred, it is not a matter of us having no influence on this subject, nor is it a matter of the United Kingdom joining the Euro. Surely the Republic of Ireland should leave the Euro. We do have a competence and a role in this matter. I ask the Minister, at the next North/South Council meeting, to draw to the attention of the Southern Irish authorities that only one third of their trade is with the Euro and two thirds is with sterling and the dollar. They have opted for the wrong currency, for the collapsing currency, and they are thereby creating problems for themselves in inflation, social unrest and eventually unemployment. Will he therefore recommend that they leave the Euro and, if possible, rejoin sterling? That would certainly be well received in County Fermanagh.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Is Mr Taylor trying to break the record?

Ms Jane Morrice: Yes, I was noting the record in the Guinness Book of Records might have been changed.

Sir Reg Empey: I acknowledge the point that the Member makes about the statistics on the economy for the Republic and the Euro. There is a large currency area made up of 11 or 12 different economies which are all at different stages and moving at different speeds. It is perfectly obvious that what we are seeing in the Republic now is the re-emergence of significant inflation. This is due to the fact that it does not control its interest rates. The lower interest rates which are appropriate for economies such as that of Germany, which has been sluggish, are totally inappropriate for the Irish economy, which has been growing strongly. We all see the consequences of that around us.
What it does with regard to its monetary policies is entirely a matter for the Irish Republic, but I do accept that the irony of the situation is that the currency differences between us are proving to be an infinitely more significant border than the constitutional border. A wall has been erected which has divided our economies as never before. I was opposed to the Republic joining the Euro because of the fact that it was losing control of its own economy to the European Central Bank. Anybody who knows anything about economics would know that the Republic should have a much higher interest rate than it currently has. That is why such a huge gap is being created. I will be happy to mention this matter at any future meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A Leas Cheann Chomhairle, in light of the situation in Fermanagh, where over 600 jobs have been lost in the past two years, does the Minister believe that the amalgamation of the Industrial Development Board (IDB) and LEDU would benefit areas where there is a trend towards small businesses? These could be expanded to create more jobs by developing businesses of with between five and 10 or up to 50 employees. Development in this area is not always catered for. There is a cross-over between the IDB and LEDU which is wasteful.

Sir Reg Empey: A number of questions are to be directed to me next week on the matter referred to by Mr McHugh. I will fully address the issue at Question Time next Monday.
With regard to the fundamental point, Mr McHugh is right to say that County Fermanagh is very good at self-help and at generating small businesses. In the western area, there is a scheme run by LEDU and the five different councils to support business start-up. County Fermanagh is excelling in that group. It has reached the stage where it needs some of the money allocated to other councils if it is to continue to develop. Obviously, that would create difficulties. We have indicated today that LEDU is prepared to make more money available but, because of the existing partnership, we need the support of the other local councils.
As far as other activities in the area are concerned, I cannot ignore tourism. There is an excellent strategy document containing a substantial plan for work for the next few years. Progress is being made, in spite of the continuing difficulties being faced by tourism.
Although difficulties exist in the Fermanagh/South Tyrone area, there are currently job vacancies with some of the more significant employers. There is also a high start-up and a high growth rate among small companies, and more jobs have been created in the last two years in County Fermanagh than have been lost. If this were not the case, unemployment would not be falling and employment would not be rising. That is a very significant point which we should not lose sight of. Undoubtedly, there are difficulties which we will tackle as best we can, in co-operation with the district council, the enterprise boards and the very effective partnership system that exists in the county. It is a member of the Regional Tourism Organisation; it is linked with councils in the Republic; and it takes part in significant cross-border activity, supported by a large variety of funding bodies.
Given these factors, I am still optimistic about the economy in County Fermanagh, in spite of the enormous difficulties with farming. County Fermanagh has shown resilience against a background of very significant loss, and its gains are still outweighing that loss. Some positive developments are taking place. The Rye Valley Foods Development is still ongoing and although it has not yet reached its employment target, it is well on its way to doing so. Significant investments have been made by the Quinn Group whose glass plant I have visited, and there are other interests which have led to growing employment. Acheson and Glover Ltd. also has expansion proposals, and it has accepted £240,000 towards a £2.5 million investment to create 27 jobs. Treacy Concrete is another such company, and we hope that there will also be continued progress by Belleek Pottery Ltd. All in all, I do not consider that the position is by any means hopeless, and I am quite confident that the people of County Fermanagh will weather the storm.

Mr Mark Robinson: If I was not aware of the dire economic situation in Fermanagh before, I am certainly aware of it now. Bearing that in mind, any announcement that the Minister or his Department can make on jobs, whether they be signed, sealed and delivered or simply prospective, is to be welcomed. The Minister referred to the Marks and Spencer situation in a previous answer. In the wake of the recent announcement about Marks and Spencer, is he in a position to confirm the category of jobs which those 100 jobs fall into? I understand that no planning application has been granted for Marks and Spencer’s ongoing development.

Ms Jane Morrice: May I remind the Member that we are discussing the economy in the Fermanagh area and that his question should relate specifically to that.

Mr Mark Robinson: Thank you for that clarification, Madame Deputy Speaker. It was my view that Lisburn was only up the road from Fermanagh, but I accept your judgement on the matter.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. Given the comparative population sizes of Belfast and Fermanagh, had this flow of jobs occurred here, there would have been a hue and cry about it. Is the Minister committing himself to skewing resources for Targeting Social Need (TSN) to two constituencies west of the Bann, namely Fermanagh and South Tyrone? This would ensure that these jobs were replaced immediately and that job losses on this scale would not happen again.

Sir Reg Empey: County Fermanagh is a TSN area, and targets have been set by IDB for visits from potential inward investors. The last TSN year, which ended in June, was the best year County Fermanagh has had for visits. Let me give the House the statistics. In 1997-1998, there were four first-time and two second-time visitors; in 1998-1999 there were two first-time and one second- time visitors; and in 1999-2000 there were four first- time and two second-time visitors, and six visits from potential investors who had already visited the area three or more times. As far as Fermanagh is concerned, IDB is more than meeting its requirements by bringing companies to TSN areas. The target quotient of all visits which should be brought to new TSN areas is 75%; that is happening in Fermanagh, and IDB met its target for last year in that regard.
However, bringing people to an area is one matter it is for the companies themselves to decide that it is in their economic interests to invest there? We can help and encourage them; we do that and will continue to do so. I must remind Members though that while individual companies may take the additional funding that might be available to them into account, the decision that they make is a commercial one.
I understand fully that in population terms this is a significant announcement. Perhaps the idea that something is being done differently here than has been done in Belfast was behind the Member’s question. May I point out again that, following the Unipork closure, LEDU and the Fermanagh Enterprise Organisation considered a special programme for the workforce made redundant at that time, but rather than create an additional organisation or taskforce, we decided to extend the remit of an existing one to avoid the complications of additional organisations. All the organisations and agencies were round the table this morning with representatives from Fermanagh District Council; all gave account of themselves when questioned by the chairman and the chief executive. I am therefore satisfied that at this stage sufficient organisational backup exists to enable a coherent response to the situation. Should there be a feeling in the county that further work needs to be done to create a structure to deal with this, I will be prepared to consider that. I took the view that, at present, we should work with the firms we already have, when they can do the job, rather than create new organisations.

Mr P J Bradley: I come from the border region of Newry and Mourne, which is similar in many ways to Fermanagh. The Minister quoted a reduction in the unemployment figures. Would I be correct in surmising that those figures are affected by the number of people who live in the North and who have taken up employment south of the border? Might that have a bearing?
Not being too well acquainted with the situation in Fermanagh, are there any further threats to similar types of jobs there? Could we see a repeat of that situation in any other factories or firms?

Sir Reg Empey: As the hon Member will know, his last question is a dangerous one for me to answer because one can never be 100% satisfied. I have already pointed out that this latest announcement came completely out of the blue and without any forewarning. I repeat that the company, Desmonds, had not asked any departmental agency for any support that was not forthcoming. We were never asked for help; it was not the case that we refused something, which triggered an announcement. We were not asked for anything that has not been responded to, and I want to make that particular point clear.
With regard to the unemployment position, there are five district councils in Northern Ireland that have worse unemployment situations than County Fermanagh, and I am sure that the Member will know them off by heart. They are: Moyle; Strabane; Londonderry; Carrickfergus; and, I think the other one is Omagh. Some people obtain work in the Republic but that applies across the whole of Northern Ireland, although I accept that, perhaps, it applies to a greater extent in the west of the Province.
It was planned that the Xerox plant in Dundalk would attract a significant number of its workforce from the Northern Ireland side of the border; from the Newry and Mourne area. That has not happened to the extent that Xerox had anticipated. The reasons why there are not more people working in the Republic is down to the euro, the currency differential and the tax regime. It has not proved to be necessarily economic for individuals to work across the border. The unemployment statistics are based upon the actuality at the time.
By the way, I said earlier that the fifth council area was Omagh. I should have said Limavady. I see a Member behind Mr Bradley nodding his head.
Those working across the border play a part but that is taken into account. If people are working in the Republic then they are not claiming unemployment benefit in Northern Ireland — or, at least, they should not be. One assumes that the figures are accurate and that they take the position into account. That applies to a number of local authorities along the border and further afield.
I take the view that there has been a genuine improvement in the situation within the county over the past while. Undoubtedly, if the currency differential was reduced then retailing would pick up and, as the Member knows only too well, one of the main problems suffered by agriculture is that the low euro and high pound are hitting the green pound. As a consequence farmers are getting less money, retailers are unable to benefit from cross-border trade and businesses like petrol stations are being slaughtered.
Clearly, the figures take into account those who work in the Republic.

Ms Jane Morrice: I call Mr Gallagher to put a final question, which must be brief.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: In relation to the advocacy role, to which my last question referred, we have to take something positive and encouraging from what has been said by the Minister in a serious situation. I was a little disappointed when he mentioned fiscal matters; that had nothing to do with us.
What he is saying is right but we must strongly advocate changes, particularly for people in the border areas. Advocacy is also needed within this Executive and the Assembly for the decentralisation of Government jobs to areas where it is difficult to get inward investment.

Ms Jane Morrice: What is the Member’s question?

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Will the Minister advocate alternative fiscal arrangements and the decentralisation of public- service jobs?

Sir Reg Empey: I am not personally convinced that there is long-term stability and benefit in the single European currency. I can understand the theory perfectly clearly, but the reason the euro has lost so much of its value is that it was formed on the basis of political fudge. Some countries should not be in the Euro zone, for their economies have not converged to the extent that they are compatible. Investors have left the Euro because they believed that it would be dominated by political rather than economic considerations. The economies of Germany and the Irish Republic, for example, are in no way compatible, for they need different interest rates, not the common level they currently have. It is a major problem.
On the question of advocating other fiscal matters, there are things which we can do and have done. We fought hard to win derogation from the climate-change levy, which affects the gas industry in Northern Ireland, and while this does not currently impact on County Fermanagh, there is always the chance that certain finds might emerge in the county to change things. However, we succeeded in winning that derogation from the Treasury for Northern Ireland as a whole. The Treasury has also substantially increased its customs-and-excise activity with regard to the smuggling of illegal fuels.
There has been a certain amount of decentralisation, but one must bear in mind that this needs to be undertaken cautiously. If one takes a group of people currently working in one part of Northern Ireland and moves them to another, that in itself does not create employment in the place to which they move, for staff turnover in many Government offices, particularly in the west of the Province, is virtually nil. The information I have suggests that in many Government offices people apply to be located as near as possible to their roots, since they do not wish to travel.
The Executive is currently looking at this whole picture. No decision has been reached. The Minister of Finance and Personnel has announced a review, which is currently underway. We expect a response to it by the end of the year or, at the latest, early next year. The Member will have to wait until that review takes place.
However, I maintain that, while such an approach may help somewhat, the long-term twin track that must be followed in County Fermanagh is to persist in the creation of new businesses. This is an area in which the county has major momentum, with tourism-related activities, where the potential is enormous, but which, unfortunately, has not been fully exploited because of circumstances beyond the county’s control. Northern Ireland as a whole has problems with visitors.
I must congratulate people in Fermanagh on the resourcefulness and tenacity with which they have attacked their problems — something they continue to do. We shall do everything in our power and give them every support to enable them to surmount this difficulty.
Motion made
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Madam Deputy Speaker]

Traffic Congestion (Saintfield Road, Belfast)

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I wish to speak on the issue of general traffic congestion on the Saintfield Road in and out of south Belfast. I raise the issue because of steadily rising anger, not only on my own part, but on the part of a whole range of people living on or adjacent to the Saintfield Road — and, indeed, most of County Down, for they must travel along the Saintfield Road to reach Belfast. There appears to all concerned to have been a total failure on the part of the Roads Service to manage the traffic on the Saintfield Road and its approaches adequately.
There are problems along the road, from Carryduff roundabout in the south, down the Saintfield Road to the Ormeau Road and into the city centre and north Belfast. I accept that the problem arises from many factors and is complex in its origins. However, it is hard to believe that it is beyond the ingenuity of our road engineers to produce a workable solution to the road problem in south Belfast, one that is tolerable for those who have to use it.
There are many aspects to the problem and they have not been helped by massive housing over-development in the area, with all the relevant implications. The most obvious aspect is the massive congestion on the Ormeau Road itself, both into and out of the city. In the morning there are tailbacks stretching back to Carryduff. In the afternoon, there are tailbacks right down into the city centre, including Cromac Street, Ormeau Avenue and all the other roads that join onto the Ormeau Road and, ultimately, the Saintfield Road.
Most of this congestion comes directly from the junction with the dual carriageway at Sainsburys. There was a bit of expensive cosmetic tinkering at the junction a few years ago, which reduced the pressure by about 10 to 15%, but the problem is still there. The relief has been short- lived and we are back to square one again. That junction requires major reconstruction. The only long-term option that I can see is the elevation of the dual carriageway over the Saintfield Road to allow adequate free movement of traffic in and out of town and along the dual carriageway.
The second aspect of the problem is directly related to the congestion. People sit for up to an hour getting out of town in the evenings and, when they reach the junction of the Cairnshill Road, around Purdysburn Hospital, the frustration of having sat in traffic leads to speeding when the road opens up. The stretch of road from Purdysburn to Carryduff becomes a speed track. There are multiple accidents every month. Fortunately, most are not fatal. However, from time to time, there are deaths.
While the development of a small commercial village at Brackenvale, on the Saintfield Road, has provided a number of useful services to the local community, it has recently become a focal point for accidents. There have been three deaths on that stretch of road in the last few months. I want to ask the Minister how many deaths we must have before there is control of that speed track.
It would be disingenuous of me to raise such acute aspects of the traffic problem without mentioning other pertinent issues. There is the major issue of public transport. All I can say is that we need public transport. It is time that somebody took Translink by the throat and told them to manage our public transport system or leave it to somebody else.
If they spent half the time on managing and solving our problems that they do on public relations and complaining about this and manipulating something else, we might get a solution. Translink is grossly over-managed and overmanned. They spend a lot of their time going round like a magic roundabout, achieving nothing. We need solutions. We need public transport and we need an effective public transport system that works. Constantly whingeing about more money will not make it work if the basic attitude and approach is not there in the first place. The money will only help if the foundations are right. I would like some assurance that we will get some sort of public transport in due course, particularly on that busy stretch of road from Cromac Street and Ormeau Avenue to Carryduff. That might go some way towards reducing the number of cars there.
It would be remiss of me to pass by the overall road plans for south Belfast without referring to that long-running sore called the southern approaches. It has blighted large swathes of south Belfast, yet various visiting Ministers have been unable or unwilling to come to any decision about it. Big lumps of Sandy Row, the Markets, Donegall Pass, lower Ormeau and lower Ravenhill are blighted and strangled by land — precious land — that is laid waste and held in reserve for a possible road development that we will probably never see, referred to as the "inner box".
As a typical example of the damage that that is doing, I refer you to the gasworks. That development has perhaps been a success story in Belfast, yet between a fifth and a quarter of the land available there — land that could accommodate 1000 or 1100 jobs — is laid waste because somebody somewhere wants to keep open the option of a highway running from Sandy Row through Hope Street, down Bankmore Street, through the gasworks and on to the Ravenhill Road. That creates uncertainty, loss of community confidence, loss of economic confidence — I could go on all day, but it would be selfish. I think I have made the point.
In summary, there is an urgent need for the Roads Service to get to grips with long-term planning and some activity schedule in south Belfast, because the disaster is steadily getting worse. Not only does local traffic use that road to access schools, work, leisure, and so on, but a large volume of traffic from County Down travels that route to get into Belfast.
I appeal to the Minister — and I thank him very much for being here this afternoon — to give us some sort of answer on the southern approaches, to get to grips with Translink and their inability to provide adequate public transport, and to get to grips with the issues that are beyond funding. If there are management issues or other issues there, let us try and sort them out. I appeal to the Minister to use whatever powers and resources he has to ensure that the speed track between Purdysburn and Carryduff roundabout does not cause any more deaths. I appeal to the Minister to deal with the desperate need to relieve the hour-long tailbacks, morning and evening, both north and south of the junction of the dual carriageway and the Saintfield road at Sainsbury’s.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I must apologise, for I was almost asleep. There are very few people in the Chamber.
I support all efforts to eradicate traffic congestion on the Saintfield Road. I am told that 5,000 vehicles use the Saintfield Road every day. To make matters worse, planners have allowed major housing developments to go ahead. Many thousands of houses have been built in the past 10years, and that has added considerably to traffic congestion in the area.
Public transport is minimal, but owing to the efforts of a Castlereagh Alliance councillor, GeraldineRice, Translink has increased the number of buses on the road, including the new "Go Bus". That is a start, but many more changes are needed. A quality bus corridor is not enough; properly managed traffic lights are urgently required. A proper park-and-ride scheme should be introduced in the hinterland of Carryduff and an E-way system, or something similar, should be developed as a matter of urgency. Money must be invested in the southern approach roads to alleviate this growing problem. If not, the Saintfield Road will be totally gridlocked very shortly. That is totally unacceptable.
That bottleneck, which carries so much traffic into Belfast has been a disaster for too long. Action must be taken to rectify this mess immediately. Dr McDonnell welcomed the fact that our Minister is with us in the Chamber this afternoon. I call on the Minister for Regional Development, who is responsible for our road service, to act as soon as possible. There are other issues — the Comber bypass, funding for roads on the Ards Peninsula, the bridge over Strangford Lough, and the new ferry. I consider such issues to be of vital importance to the constituents of Strangford.

Ms Jane Morrice: I remind the Member that the subject is the Saintfield Road.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I am aware of that. If the Minister gives a reasonable answer to the Saintfield Road problem today I shall be happy.

John Taylor: I enjoyed the last contribution, and I agreed with some of it. I must congratulate the hon Member for South Belfast (Dr McDonnell) for securing this adjournment debate and for highlighting the major traffic problems on the Saintfield Road. Much of his speech was dedicated to parts of my own constituency, from Purdysburn up to the Carryduff roundabout. The Strangford ferry is important, but we have no ferry on the Saintfield Road, so far.
We must consider carefully whether planning permission can be given for future housing developments in Carryduff, Saintfield and Ballynahinch, as these areas all feed into the southern approach down the Saintfield Road and into the Ormeau Road. The Member was somewhat critical of the new junction at Forster Green. I was closely involved in the work done behind the scenes to achieve that objective, because that was in my constituency at that time. I worked with Sainsbury’s and the Department of the Environment, as it was then called. The project was financed by Sainsbury’s, at a cost of £2 million to £3million, and has helped to ease the traffic at that junction. I travel through it every day, when I am in Northern Ireland, and it is much easier now than it was.
The situation will rapidly get worse again, as the Member said, because of those major housing projects in Carryduff, Saintfield and Ballynahinch. One problem is the consultation process for planning decisions. When planning applications, made by Frasers or companies connected with the Fraser family, come before Castlereagh Borough Council — I am sorry to have to say it — the DUP councillors generally support any major housing projects in the Carryduff area.
There was a major public meeting in Carryduff a few months ago. Lough Moss community centre was packed to the doors — there was standing room only around the walls — and the people of Carryduff voiced major criticism of these monster housing schemes that are being planned for the area. If these schemes get the go-ahead, they will make the congestion which the hon member for South Belfast described today look like a picnic compared to what will happen. The whole area from Carryduff right down the Saintfield Road and on to the Ormeau Road will be congested.
I congratulate the Minister for being here this afternoon to respond to this debate. He should listen to those members of Castlereagh Borough Council who represent the Ulster Unionist and Alliance Parties, particularly those representing the Strangford constituency. We are saying on behalf of the people of Carryduff that there must be a moratorium on any major housing projects in the Carryduff area until a new traffic scheme for the Saintfield and Ormeau Roads has been put in place.

Mr Mark Robinson: In raising the question of traffic congestion in the Saintfield Road area, Dr McDonnell has quite rightly highlighted an issue of appalling magnitude. Given the considerable number of housing developments built in recent years, not only in the outlying area of BT6 and BT8 but also in Carryduff and as far south in County Down as Kilkeel, it was inevitable the severe traffic congestion would only get worse.
The ongoing housing development and the subsequent increase in road traffic — estimated to be growing at a rate of 5% per annum — results in the daily horror of a journey of one hour or more just to get into the city centre via this engorged artery. Members will undoubtedly agree that the basic problem has been the failure of both Labour and Conservative Administrations to address this problem over numerous decades. They failed to provide the necessary level of funding required to maintain the standard of provision to which the public were entitled. This is certainly true of roads and transport, and, I am in no doubt, other vital areas of Northern Ireland’s infrastructure were deprived in like fashion.
As Members may know, this road lies within the area of Castlereagh Borough Council’s area. At the beginning of 1998, calls for a Castlereagh area plan had been ongoing for some years. The ludicrous situation existed whereby, although the Planning Service, the local council and the general public were concerned about the road traffic problem, a commissioner of planning appeals could override such concern and glibly grant permission to inaugurate further commercial enterprises, which only served to exacerbate the already disquieting, not to say dangerous, situation. An area plan to co-ordinate the future of the borough was, and is, an absolute necessity. Limited resources were suggested as being the reason for the absence of such an area plan, together with the need to consider the overarching regional strategy. Meanwhile, traffic congestion, like Topsy, just "growed and growed", as did the concern of the residents in the area with regard to the destruction of wildlife and the environment of Castlereagh borough.
In February 1998 concern was again voiced by Mr Peter Robinson MP, the Member for East Belfast, that considerable development in Carryduff had caused severe traffic congestion on this southern approach to the city. It is the recorded view of Castlereagh Borough Council that decisions should have been taken to reduce the number of cars on our arterial routes, and on this one in particular. The council advocated park-and-ride schemes and the zoning of industrial land outside the city centre to reduce car traffic at peak periods.
‘Shaping Our Future’, which included a provision for 200,000 houses in Northern Ireland, was accorded the right of examination in public — a sharp departure from the established procedure of a public inquiry. Lack of time was the reason given for the absence of consultation with the public. Again, in February 1998, the Minister stated that this southern approach would be considered as part of the overall regional strategy as a primary transport route. At that time the official hope was to alleviate traffic by a combination of measures including light railway, priority bus routes; park-and-ride schemes and bus lanes among others.
I must suggest that the priority of most of these remedies clearly illustrated the lack of commitment to the easing of congestion whether by area plan or by an overarching strategy. In the continued absence of a Castlereagh area plan and with the lack of both strategic planning for the area and the massive funding needed to rectify the situation, it behoves the relevant Departments to introduce meaningful legislation to discourage the single motorist of today, and tomorrow, in tandem with stringent motor traffic regulations.
Staggered starting times, especially for schools and shopping areas, deserve serious consideration. Future siting of schools, factories and shopping outlets must be such as to avoid adding to the congestion of arterial routes. Industrial zoning and careful and environmentally sound housing development must be in the forefront of any future planning strategy.

Mr Gregory Campbell: First, I thank the Members who contributed to the debate, and DrMcDonnell for introducing the subject. I will deal with the series of concerns that were raised with regard to congestion on the Saintfield Road.
First, let me state some obvious facts. In the mornings the Saintfield Road is a very busy commuter route into central Belfast. There are an increasing number of vehicles using that road on a per annum basis, and the number increases by about 1·5% per year. Currently there are approximately 32,000 vehicles using the Saintfield Road each day. Additional traffic is generated by the large housing developments along the Saintfield Road and in Carryduff — a number of Members have referred to that. The worst examples of traffic congestion are at Newton Park, Rosetta and the lower Ormeau Road.
There have been two documents brought into the public domain in the past two years. The first — ‘A Better Way’ — was issued in October 1998 with the headline "What are we to do about traffic on the Saintfield Road?" That was circulated to homes along the bus corridor, and there was a very positive response to it. It indicated that the Department would be prepared to look at a number of factors.
At that stage there was the possibility of a park-and-ride facility at Cairnshill, and there was also the suggestion that a super route — a potential bus way, which was first suggested five years earlier in 1993 — along the line of the proposed Annadale to Grahamholm road scheme would be contemplated and a quality bus corridor opened. Then in June of this year another ‘Better Way’ document was issued with the heading "Belfast’s First Quality Bus Corridor Opens on Saintfield Road". My predecessor, Alderman Peter Robinson, officially opened that bus corridor on 27 June.
Those are the plans that the Department has to deal with the congestion. I understand from DrMcDonnell’s comments, as a public representative in that area, that he would prefer that the Department simply build an additional lane to the Saintfield Road. I was at a transportation conference in Manchester last month, and the experience recently throughout the UK has been to try to encourage a modal shift particularly amongst commuter traffic.
That is why the Department for Regional Development has concentrated on this threefold assault on the problems in the Saintfield Road area. The Department is hopeful that the park and ride facility at Cairnshill will be operational in the next two years. There may well be difficulties. Objections to the planning application for the site have recently been heard at a public enquiry. The Commission’s recommendations are expected in the near future.
The super route, the potential bus way originally envisaged in 1993, is some distance away. The overall cost for that development, and this is a guesstimate, is £25 million. But that is some way off yet. There is a "before and after" study of the quality bus corridor that opened four months ago underway at present, and I hope to have the outcome of that study within a matter of weeks — certainly before the end of the year. That will give us a clear indication of what beneficial effects there have been since the introduction of the quality bus corridor.
I understand Dr McDonnell’s frustration which he indicated when he said that I "should take Translink by the throat". That frustration is felt not only by him, but also by those who use the Saintfield Road in the mornings and evenings. It is hoped that these measures will go some way towards responding to the problems over the next few years.
Mr McCarthy, the Assembly Member for Strangford, indicated that he would like to see action as soon as possible. As I have already said, in a few weeks’ time we will be better able to judge the success of the quality bus corridor’s first few months in operation. It is the first of a number that we are contemplating in the Belfast area.
The other Member for Strangford, Mr Taylor, made a major criticism of what he termed were "monster housing developments". I am sure that the comments will be taken on board by the Minister and the Department of the Environment who have responsibility for that. He also made what I think were political references to occurrences in Castlereagh Borough Council regarding such developments. As Mr Taylor is no longer a member of Castlereagh Borough Council I will pass on his comments to those on the council and they may be in a position to respond.
Mr Mark Robinson, the Member for South Belfast, made a number of references to the major developments that have occurred in Carryduff and are continuing in that area. There are a number of schemes underway in relation to road accidents that have occurred, particularly on that stretch of the road. It is hoped that they will be in place in this financial year. At the Hillsborough Road junction at Carryduff a scheme is envisaged which will provide traffic signals. It is being carried out to reduce accidents, reduce queuing on the side roads and enhance pedestrian facilities. There is another accident remedial scheme at Ivanhoe Avenue. It is also programmed to be constructed in this financial year.
I do not come to the debate today, as very few Ministers do, with a magic wand that will resolve these issues overnight. They are issues that should be and will be taken with the utmost seriousness by my Department. We will address them, and it is hoped that we will soon see improvements on that major arterial route into Belfast.
Adjourned at 4.00 pm.